Three days after Saddam's capture, the Bush Adminstration is giving us reason to wonder about their handling of the situation. We hear that Bush wants the Iraqis to try Saddam. But we may also try him in the US for crimes against America. The UN General Secretary supports an international tribunal and also opposes having the death penalty on the table. Bush says he should be put to death.
Think about that. Bush and Rummy (and of course Dick Cheney) had decided on war in Iraq by no later than August of 2002, as it now appears from publicly available information. Now, 16 months later, we have Saddam Hussein in custody - and there's no clear policy on whether and how and by whom he will be tried? This is not a good sign.
What happens if the Iraqis try him under the auspices of the Interim Governing Council (IGC)? Leaving aside whatever difficulties that may present in terms of the international law on foreign occupation, where is Iraq going to get competent judges with the credibility to convince the world they're having a fair trial? The Baathists have been in power for decades, over two of them with Saddam at the helm. The Iraqi courts were not known for their judicial impartiality. Torture was often used to extract "evidence."
And what limitations do the immediate agendas of IGC members and other leading Iraqis have in a trial of Saddam? Some of them are surely more concerned with concealing their own collaboration with the Baathist regime than in impartial justice. And how will the agendas of Iraqi politicians in that situation conflict with US priorities? For instance, we are currently rehabilitating some of the old Mukhabaret secret police apparatus to use in gathering intelligence on the resistance. Regardless of whether that in itself is a good idea or whether it is being well-executed, a trial of Saddam in Iraq could raise awkward questions about that effort.
(Cont. in Part 2)
No comments:
Post a Comment