(Cont. from Part 2) Bill Clinton gave enough credence to the CIA report in 1993 that Saddam's agents planned to assassinate former President Bush on a trip to Kuwait that he ordered a missile attack on an intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. But investigative journalists have raised serious questions about the accuracy of even that charge. Is there really enough solid evidence for a war crimes charge on that incident?
A third option is a trial under international auspices. In a legal sense and in terms of international credibility, that seems to be the only viable option. Presumably, when the President consults his lawyer about what international law is, the lawyer will tell him something like that.
A special tribunal like the one currently sitting in the Hague on crimes related to the Balkan Wars could be set up. The United Nations has established the International Criminal Court (ICC) to handle cases just like this. But the unilateralist Bush Adminstration is not only ideologically opposed to the ICC. They've made it a diplomatic priority to undermine it. Yet the UN will find it difficult to authorize any other forum than the ICC for a Saddam trial. Also, the UN won't permit the death penalty, and Bush has already said he thinks Saddam deserves to die.
And think of the list of charges under international law and the potential complications for our current situation in Iraq: the invasion of Iran (Iran is already calling for this charge); the invasion of Kuwait; the gassing of the Kurds in 1987-88; the brutal suppression of the Shiite uprising in 1991.
All of them present problems for the United States. The invasion of Iran? The US supported Iraq in the war against Iran. Recalling that war will also bring up the bizarre Iran-Contra scandal and remind everyone how many shady characters and convicted criminals from that scandal have played important roles with the current Bush Administration.
(Cont. in Part 4)
No comments:
Post a Comment