Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Saddam in the Dock

    Posted by Lexington Green on December 15th, 2003 (All posts by )

    Everybody is assuming that Saddam will get a Nuremburg-style trial. Everybody also seems to assume that it will go well for the “prosecution” and end without too much hassle in Saddam’s execution. See, for example, Eliot Cohen’s piece from today’s WSJ. (subscription required.)

    I worry. Recall the performance of Hermann Goering at Nuremburg. Prison agreed with Goering. He dried out of his morphine addiction, he lost a ton of weight and he came out swinging. The fat, effeminate junkie was gone, the street-fighter, the air ace, the ruthless bastard who had clawed his way to the top of the Third Reich was back in the game. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson cross-examined Goering, and it is generally acknowledged that Goering kicked his ass, with a combination of unrepentant pugnacity, an avalanche of irrelevant and self-serving facts, and open contempt for his interrogator and the whole proceeding. Then, he even cheated the hangman, by taking cyanide he had hidden in a dental filling.

    William Safire seems to be thinking along the same lines.“[Saddam] is looking forward to the mother of all genocide trials, rivaling Nuremberg’s and topping those of Eichmann and Milosevic. There, in the global spotlight, he can pose as the great Arab hero saving Islam from the Bushes and the Jews.” Saddam didn’t go down fighting with bullets because he wants to go into history fighting with rhetoric. He may actually have the initiative and be executing his own end-game. Like Goering, Saddam was once a tough bastard and a survivor, a man who was willing to kill people with his own gun or his own hands in cold blood if it served his interests to do so. Saddam may still have a lot of fight in him. (Plus, as Wretchard of the always brilliant Belmont Club points out Saddam holds a valuable bargaining card — information: about the location of caches of money, about WMD, about other Ba’athist still fighting us, which he may hope will lead to a deal that spares his life.)

    And Saddam is going to have allies and supporters to help him. Watch what is going to happen now. The French, the Left, the ACLU and everybody of that ilk are now going to make Saddam their darling, their hero, a man denied due process, a man being railroaded. French lawyers will try to go to Baghdad to represent him. American lawyers will argue that he should immediately be brought to the Hague. He will be the new Mummia. Even the way he looked when he got captured will help him with the Left — he looked like a cross between a homeless person, Karl Marx and Che Guevarra, all icons of holiness to those people, images which touch the deepest wellsprings of their sentiments. And anybody who is fighting the American army starts to look like a “resistance fighter” like the Sandinistas or the Viet Cong, and hence a heroic figure to the Left. Moreover, anybody who is Bush’s enemy must be OK. This is going to lead to more and more grotesque configurations. It is going to get really weird. (This is all consistent with Wretchard’s insightful thesis that with the demise of communism, Islamic extremism is going to merge with the activist Left, and become its most dynamic element. Watch Saddam in court. He is going to play up the “Islamic” element big time, even though he may have killed more Muslims than any other single leader in history.)

    And I don’t put it past Bremer and his crew to seriously botch this whole thing. It occurs to me that the civilian management team over there might not even have a plan in place at all to handle a live capture. That would be consistent with much of the reconstruction effort so far, where every major decision, other than the actual combat operations, seems to have been made on the fly. This may be yet one more half-assed extemporization. It is not good to under-estimate an enemy, especially someone like Saddam, who is going to try to extract the maximum vengeance on his opponents before his corpse is flung onto the trash heap of history.

    UPDATE: Holy crap. Even National Review is already talking about an “international tribunal” for Saddam. I say, put him in a room, bound with rope, with duct tape over his mouth. Have a stream of Iraqis whose relatives were murdered come in, scream obscenities at him and spit on him, then, after a few hours, have an Iraqi “judge” say, “the sentence is death”, then have an Iraqi firing squad kill him. I’d like this to be done by next Saturday. The longer it drags on and the more lawyers get involved, the more of a mess it is going to be. And I’m a lawyer myself. This is about politics, it is not about law, and the less lawyering occurs, the better. But it looks like the lawyers have glommed onto this thing, and I bet Saddam is still alive and well in a year, while the “procedures” grind away.

    UPDATE II: This early report (via Drudge) states that Saddam is a “broken man” who has provided intelligence to the US, even that he “felt safer” with the Americans. This may be true, which cuts against the Goering scenario. Or it could be disinformation to dishearten his remaining followers. I hope it’s true, that Saddam is just a beaten down old man who will go sullenly to the noose, without any surprises or fireworks. That would be the best-case scenario. But then there’s this, saying he’s defiant. I hope our people can extract a large quantity of useful intelligence out of him before he is turned over to the Iraqis for “trial” and execution. We should promise him some kind of life sentence if he spills his guts, then renege. In the immortal words of Richard Nixon, “You cut a deal. Cut a deal, then screw ’em.”

    I was very disappointed to see Bush say that Saddam would get “a fair trial”. I don’t want our enemies to think they will get, or are entitled to, a “fair trial”. I want them to think they will get swift, unannounced and violent death. Bush is way too much of a liberal, way too nice.

     

    28 Responses to “Saddam in the Dock”

    1. Jonathan Says:

      OK, he probably won’t confess and throw himself on the mercy of the court, but:

      1) We’re still ahead. It’s not like he wanted to be caught.

      2) Yeah, Goering spit at the Nuremburg court. So what? It’s not as though the Nazi defendants inspired a new generation of followers. Nobody wants to end up like that. Nobody will want to end up like Hussein, no matter how defiantly he goes down.

      3) The Euros and ACLU aren’t going to be running this trial, the Iraqis are. There is a now a big constituency in Iraq for avenging Hussein’s crimes. The people who are going to be trying him are the same people who are going to be running for office in a year or two. You think they’re going to allow themselves to be tied up in procedure? I suppose it’s possible but I think it’s unlikely.

    2. Andy B Says:

      Hopefully, U.S. Customs has pulled Johnny Cochran’s passport.

    3. Jay Manifold Says:

      I hope we don’t hand him over to the Iraqis too soon. We do need some information — about the WMD programs, about the training of al-Qa’eda, about the arms and nuclear deals with the French and Germans and Russians. Not much hope of getting Putin to lock anybody up, but sending Chirac to jail for the rest of his life would be a nice outcome. Combined with the collapse of their constitutional convention, this could break the back of the EU. The tranzis are the next enemy after the Islamists, and this could be the ultimate two-fer if we handle it right. Idiotarii delenda est!

    4. mr. courtesy Says:

      What hyperbolic hogwash!

      Nobody is going to rally behind Saddam Hussein. Not the French, not the “left”, not the ACLUS, no one save a few people from Tikrit. No one is going to have “free saddam” bumperstickers. And if I see one, i’ll personally send you a picture of myself with my shoe in my mouth.

      Yes, some of the anti-war crowd are going to have a difficult time knowing how to react to Saddam’s capture. But it is delusional to think that the same people will put him up on a pedestal as some sort of hero. Puuuhhhleeeze!

      And ,call me crazy, but maybe executing Saddam as soon as possible may not be the best thing to do. There is still that issue of the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction.. i don’t know, maybe Saddam might have some information about those?

      You know.. this is just ridiculous.. People on all sides of the spectrum are so f@#$ing disingenous and self-serving.. Lefties are bitching because president Bush scored a major victory for the world and for the upcoming election. And all the Righties have found another way to bash France and Germany and the “Left”. Good God! I was so happy to wake up and hear that Saddam was captured on sunday, now i feel totally disillusioned. Instead of using this victory as a uniting force, people are using it as a wedge to widen the growing chasm.

      So go ahead.. jump into the echo chamber. Use the capture of Saddam as another way of bashing the French and the Left, if you wish.. But there are far more accurate an insightful ways to criticize them.

    5. Lex Says:

      Mr. Courtesy, if I do you wrong, I apologize. But, just watch. I’m not talking about, say, people who voted for Gore, I’m talking about people whose immediate response to Saddam’s capture was to say “this is just another plastic turkey moment, meaning nothing” or to weep because it means Howard Dean is now more likely to lose. Of course there are patriotic Democrats, socialists, what have you. I’m going to see the Straitjackets with one this Saturday, as it happens. There are sensible lefties who agree that Saddam was dirt and capturing him was good. There are many such people. But. There is a very vocal fringe element, which has come far into prominence recently. I think they’ll see Saddam as a victim, not a hero, but they will still see his cause as a way to harm and discredit Bush, et al, whom they see as worse than Hitler.

      Where I say “the Left” here, I used the term “liberals” in an earlier post, which I defined as follows.

      I suppose I should say just whom I refer to when I use “liberals” as a noun in the foregoing since I am being so mean to them. Do I refer to my neighbors in the socialist village of Oak Park? No. My colleagues who are Democrats? No, not really. People who work in the real world, especially in commercial businesses with customers and clients are exposed to too much ordinary human variety every day to become prisoners of a truth-defying ideology. What I mean by “liberals” in this context is people who have a professional and public stake in liberal and leftist causes, the types of people who are drawn to that type of work, and the type of mindset that flourishes in that milieu. Specifically, people who work at think tanks and public interest groups, at activist liberal law firms, university departments especially in the humanities and social sciences, people who work in the senior ranks of government bureaucracies, most Democratic politicians and their professional staffs and consultants who work for them, people who work in entertainment media and publishing, and most especially at the major media operations like television and newspapers. People in these settings rarely meet anyone who seriously disagrees with them. They are free to demonize an imaginary “other”.

      Where I say “Leftists” in this post, I mean the outermost fringe of this group.

      My father in law, for example, is a leftist philosophy professor. He has told me in all sincerity that the best thing for the United States would be for it to suffer a bloody defeat in a foreign war, which would teach it to stop interfering in other parts of the world. So, does he “support our troops”? No. He wants them to die.

      Such people exist, in large and influential numbers. They think that anything which thwarts the United States and the exercise of its power is good. Most such people are less forthcoming than my father in law, with whom I disagree about everything. But he is not disingenuous.

      I wish it were just ridiculous. Maybe it is. I hope you are right. Let’s see what happens. Make a prediction, take your chances.

      If I’m way out of line, you can be the first to say so, say around next Easter.

      It is going to be an interesting next few months.

    6. Lex Says:

      Jonathan wrote:

      “Yeah, Goering spit at the Nuremburg court. So what? It’s not as though the Nazi defendants inspired a new generation of followers.” I’m not so sure Saddam will be so ineffective. Goering had no successors because Germany was crushed. They had all the fight beat out of them. But the entire world of Arab and Islamic anti-Americanism is not crushed. They have not yet begun to fight. We are in for another hundred years.

      Look at this comment:

      The Jordanian Bar Association considers President Saddam Hussein as the head of the resistance to liberate a dear part of our occupied Arab land,” said the bar’s president, Hussein Mejali. He urged the world, and Arab leaders in particular, to provide Saddam with “the legitimate protection he deserves as a leader of a liberation movement against occupation.

      (From this, via Drudge)

      I think there are plenty of Muslims and Arabs who feel disgraced by the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, who are desperate for signs of resistance to us, and who will be inspired by a defiant Saddam — especially if he wraps himself in the mantle of “Defender of Islam” as he goes down. Plenty of people will see him as a “leader of a liberation movement against occupation”, and make a hero out of him. If he puts on a good show at his trial, he can make a difference. He can hurt us as he dies. If he has a plan, that’s probably it.

    7. Jonathan Says:

      Point taken about the ongoing fight. Hussein must want to play the role of defiant martyr, because then he can still be, in some way, even if only for a brief time, a leader. But will the followers follow? Unclear. Did they follow Milosevic?

      And still, obviously, no one wants to be in Hussein’s shoes, so the very fact that we have him deters wannabes.

      And I don’t see why a trial would necessarily work to his advantage. If it’s like the Eichmann trial, in which numerous victims of the Nazis testified about the horrors to which they had been subjected, it might not help the Islamist cause.

    8. Jim Says:

      While I agree that there will be factions who will use Saddam as a freedom fighter, they are no more prevalent that the far right wackos that want to pave the middle east and start over. Emprical evidence is that the vast majority of left and right is happy that Hussein is captured and want a fair trial. The fact is that there is no dramatic difference between the mainstream right and left (Bush v Gore was virtually a dead heat)and the only way either side can provide a contrast is to point out the most extremist portion of the opposition.

    9. Pouncer Says:

      http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/12/15122003170809.asp

      >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…

    10. Lex Says:

      Right, Pouncer. A trial necessarily means it can go EITHER WAY, or it’s not a trial. If it’s not a trial, don’t pretend its a trial.

      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.

    11. Peter UK Says:

      Itwould have been better if the troops that found Saddam had used the spider hole as a latrine for a couple of weeks.

    12. Jonathan Says:

      Lex, you are making me nervous. I think the main thing is to hand him over to the Iraqis before he has time to start organizing anything. How long does it take to interrogate someone like him?

      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.

    13. Richard A. Heddleson Says:

      The question of how to “torture” Saddam into giving useful information is interesting. Saddam probably has a preference for an international trial as opposed to facing his own people and their less sophisticated legal processes. We can keep swinging him back and forth on venue until we think we’ve got what we want in exchange for an international trial and then implement the Nixon strategy.

    14. Martin Adamson Says:

      On the question of the trial, why have a trail on the big, vague, issues of crimes against humanity, genocide, crimes against international law etc? Why not just have a typical, small, tightly focussed trial on one particular crime? Something on the line of a specific incident of brutality where 20 or 30 named, known individuals were killed on a specific day, indisputable paper and eye witness evidence that links Saddam to their murders, a finite, controlled number of witnesses, and a short but fair process. Once the verdict’s in, leave the rest to a public enquiry or truth commission or whatever.

    15. John Anderson Says:

      First, the Iraqis should try him.

      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.

    16. Lex Says:

      Ramsay Clark offers to defend Saddam.

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

    17. Jim Linnane Says:

      If Saddam had been shot or otherwise killed at the scene, a lot of people would say that it was not the real Saddam, but a US fake – like the plastic turkey; but at least the world would be rid of him.

      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.

    18. Lex Says:

      Jim, more than “getting over the past 3 decades”, it will help them believe he is REALLY GONE, and therefore they can freely cooperate with us now. His death, soon, serves a very valuable political and military purpose.

    19. David Mercer Says:

      They left is already howling about it. My moonbat lefty professor neighbor thinks they will have him offed a la Jack Ruby (which I also saw elsewhere on the net) because, get this, he’ll spill too many dark secrets about the evils of Rumsfeld/Cheney and Co. if it goes to an open trial.

      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? :-)

    20. Wally Says:

      Interesting article but I think the thought that the left will rally behind Saddam is an extremely radical thought. I was against the war not for the reasons most people are characterizing the anti-war crowd. I was against it because because of this war we have all but lost people who once were our allies. The French and Germans didn’t want us to attack Saddam for the same reasons we didn’t attack him before the first war. The same reasons we don’t attack the Saudis(who did actually have something to do with 911 and a huge number of human rights violations). That reason is the cause of all nastiness and leniancy. It’s a little thing called interest. Personally I think this left/right battle is childish and future generations will laugh at you silly old polemicists for taking it so seriously. It’s really just a battle of who can spew the most out of context characterizations of their opponent and not get caught. Remember that word people, “interests” and put away your childish ideas about what is good, evil, terrorism, and freedom fighting. These are the things of preschool level mentality and remember you are sitting in your comfy armchair stuffing your face with superaffordable fast food because of the same sort of horrific violence shown by all people who we want to distance ourselves from. I think as a nation we need to put ourselves as far away from that past as humanly possible and set an example for all others who in our eyes “dont get it”.

    21. Wally Says:

      “My father in law, for example, is a leftist philosophy professor. He has told me in all sincerity that the best thing for the United States would be for it to suffer a bloody defeat in a foreign war, which would teach it to stop interfering in other parts of the world. So, does he “support our troops”? No. He wants them to die.”

      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.

    22. Lex Says:

      Wally, you have drawn a razor-thin distinction between “wanting them to die” and “just wanting them to die.” He wants the United States to be defeated in a war. Saying, that’s OK then because he wants some higher good to arise doesn’t cut any ice with me.

      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.

    23. Wally Says:

      Lex, I dont believe the US is a force of evil in the world but I do think that we often inadvertantly do things that arise in tragedy that could have been averted. Again I dont really put much interest in terms of good and evil because everything is really all about interests. I think they are poor terms as well as impediments to rational thought(not to mention the motivation for just about every war, the causes of course are misunderstanding and greed). Have you given much thought to my assertion that Bush used basically the same logic for PREVENTIVE war? His vision was that many innocents would die(including our soldiers) for the good of the future. Is that to say Bush just wants them to die? I’m with you on your second point. I don’t think an American defeat does us any good and in fact would only further render us impotent in national affairs. But I didn’t support the war in the first place either. I thought we’d be much better off focusing on Al Qaida.
      I’m sorry but I am still unable to see contrast between the two arguments. Again I dont agree with your father’s point but I still think I understand it best. Perhaps your frustration with your father’s persistance to see things in his own way has irritated you to the point where you dont even want to consider his ideas any more. Believe me, i can relate ;)

    24. Lex Says:

      “I dont really put much interest in terms of good and evil because everything is really all about interests.”

      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.

    25. Wally Says:

      Lex, i think i have inadvertantly offended you. I really offered that last comment about your father to insert some humor and in no way consider myself a professional therapist. I am just reflecting on my own relationship with my father and it seemed similar to your own. Please accept my apology. You offered the last word and since this is your forum I’ll respect that.
      Of course all people have a set of morals that they adopt as they grow throughout their lives. I believe those morals form their interests which would better explain what I previously stated.
      As for..”people do what they want to do because they want to do it.” I would add to that because their morals permit it. And yes you put it perfectly. A soldier dies for his country for the same reason a bank robber robs a bank. They are only acting out whatever they believe is apropriate. There are alot of people(including bank robbers) who just don’t fit in with my or your ideals. Perhaps they do it out of ignorance or lack of compassion for their fellow man. Perhaps they are acting against an unfair system by making their own rules and we are the ignorant.
      As for goood and evil. What is good then and what is evil? Who decides it? If it is absolute why does perception of it constantly change as we move through history? Was Aristotle evil in his time because he was judged as such by his peers? Why is he no longer seen as evil then. You see it’s a slippery slope to a variety of meaningless convictions and these terms have been used so carelessly that they have almost lost meaning. What is deemed historically evil depends on who the victor is and yes their interests. Do you believe might determines right? I don’t but I certainly think it has a dramatic effect on perception of good,evil,morality, and yes interests. Some people may seem insane to us but does that mean they have no morals whatsoever?

      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 :).

    26. Peter UK Says:

      Any trial will have to be carefully structured to be fair and be seen as fair and at the same time prevent Saddam from using it as a platform.Whilst the left may not rally to Saddam they will definitely use the trial for its symbolism,any opportunity to denounce the US will be siezed upon.There is always a fall back position for the “Yes But.. Brigade”,its wearing thin but reality has no relevance in this political game.

    27. jaime Says:

      Lex, no need to worry. An educational show trial is being prepared. The film has been rolling since Saddam’s emergence from the dark caverns of Hades.

    28. Miguek Says:

      Dear Mr Courtesy (nice nick :)) Some people are supporting Saddam. Today I read that yesterday (on the 18th) Daniel Ortega, ex communist dictator of Nicaragua (and -unfortunately- with some possibilities of going back to power in the next elections) declared that for his party, the Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (completely communist) SADDAM HUSSEIN IS THE REAL AND ACTUAL PRESIDENT OF IRAQ, FOR HE WAS TOPPLED BY AN INVADING POWER. He plans to do everything in his power to help Saddam, much more if he gets to be the president of Nicaragua again. As you see, unfortunately some wacos out there are supporting Saddam. Actualy the same goes for Fidel Castro, dictator of Cuba and Hugo Chávez, president-dictator of Venezuela. All of them communists, curiously.