War crimes trials? Really? Where?
Elisabeth Bumiller of the NY Times reported today that Saddam Hussein and at least eight other Iraqi leaders would be tried be tried for war crimes after the conflict -- unless of course they surrender first.
This raises the interesting question of which court would try them. Not the new International Criminal Court, certainly Bush would be too fearful of legitimizing its jurisdiction. He might be next.
Could Saddam Hussein and other defendants be brought to the US? Possibly, but where, exactly?
In New York? Fuhgetaboutit. The public would expect prosecutors to address the evidence of the alleged link between Iraq and the 9/11 attack -- which Bush knows would fail and the case might be lost. Besides, the UN would be to close at hand for reporters to get comments from other nations as to what they thought about the matter.
Washington would be out of question. Too near the Supreme Court. People would be wondering why Saddam Hussein can get a trial, but US citizen Jose Padilla can't.
Florida would do, maybe. That's where they did Manuel Noriega. And if any questions about the jury developed Jeb Bush could print up some butterfly verdicts.
No, it's clear it would have to be a military trial in either Iraq itself, or more likely Guantanamo Bay, where the Pentagon can exercise maximum control over image and information.
They would be carefully orchestrated proceedings sporting all the pomp, circumstance and trappings of ostensible process leading to a directed verdict. In other words, a show trial of the kind Stalin perfected in the 1930s.
And if they were to stage the war crimes trials at Guantanamo Bay, why, they could kill many birds with few stones. Imagine, one huge mass execution of Saddam Hussein and all thse hapless suspects rounded up in Afghanistan and languishing there without lawyers or trials ever since. Such a move would finally provide the tangible link between Iraq and the al-Qaeda Bush has been claiming all along.
Before we leave Busmiller's article behind, she includes a statement by a general, which fairly screams from the page to the reader.
She reports that:
Elisabeth Bumiller of the NY Times reported today that Saddam Hussein and at least eight other Iraqi leaders would be tried be tried for war crimes after the conflict -- unless of course they surrender first.
This raises the interesting question of which court would try them. Not the new International Criminal Court, certainly Bush would be too fearful of legitimizing its jurisdiction. He might be next.
Could Saddam Hussein and other defendants be brought to the US? Possibly, but where, exactly?
In New York? Fuhgetaboutit. The public would expect prosecutors to address the evidence of the alleged link between Iraq and the 9/11 attack -- which Bush knows would fail and the case might be lost. Besides, the UN would be to close at hand for reporters to get comments from other nations as to what they thought about the matter.
Washington would be out of question. Too near the Supreme Court. People would be wondering why Saddam Hussein can get a trial, but US citizen Jose Padilla can't.
Florida would do, maybe. That's where they did Manuel Noriega. And if any questions about the jury developed Jeb Bush could print up some butterfly verdicts.
No, it's clear it would have to be a military trial in either Iraq itself, or more likely Guantanamo Bay, where the Pentagon can exercise maximum control over image and information.
They would be carefully orchestrated proceedings sporting all the pomp, circumstance and trappings of ostensible process leading to a directed verdict. In other words, a show trial of the kind Stalin perfected in the 1930s.
And if they were to stage the war crimes trials at Guantanamo Bay, why, they could kill many birds with few stones. Imagine, one huge mass execution of Saddam Hussein and all thse hapless suspects rounded up in Afghanistan and languishing there without lawyers or trials ever since. Such a move would finally provide the tangible link between Iraq and the al-Qaeda Bush has been claiming all along.
Before we leave Busmiller's article behind, she includes a statement by a general, which fairly screams from the page to the reader.
She reports that:
In an interview Friday, the commander, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, said that the United States military instead planned to destroy the infrastructure and government controlled by Mr. Hussein to open the way for a representative government.And doesn't that sound an awful like the infamous, "We had to destroy the village to save it" quote that so well illustrated the absurdity of the politico-military ideo-illogic of Vietnam?
<< Home