(Cont. from Part 1) Though it may seem obvious at first thought, just how solid a case against Saddam is there under Iraqi law? Presumably some of the murders he ordered of political opponents did violate Iraqi laws in effect at the time. (The charges in the Nuremburg trials were all based on laws in effect in Germany during the Second World War.) But that may turn out to be a trickier question than we might think. Also, there was massive destruction of documents in the rioting in Baghdad after the collapse of the Iraqi government. So the availability of credible documentary evidence could also be a problem.
When we think about a US trial of Saddam for crimes against the US, that also might look obvious at first glance. But with what exactly would he be charged?
The charges would presumably have to be under international law. But it is was just last week that the President of the United States responded with a sneer when asked if our policy on reconstruction contracts in Iraq would be in compliance with international law. "International law? I better call my lawyer."
Yeah, that's a good yuck, all right. But when a President shoots off his mouth with arrogant frat-boy cracks like that, it can have consequences. That was on Thursday he said that. On Saturday, Saddam Hussein was captured. On Sunday, the Administration was being asked how Saddam's judicial case would be handled.
So, what laws has Saddam Hussein broken in relation to the US? Did he invade us like he did Iran and Kuwait? Did he use illegal weapons against our soldiers? Did he personally order the mistreatment of American prisoners? These aren't academic questions. If we're going to try the guy under international law with crimes against the United States, we have to charge him with committing some particular crime. We can't just charge him with hating America.
(Cont. in Part 3)
No comments:
Post a Comment