It was vaguely surprising to me that the most balanced, level-headed discussion on what to do with Saddam Hussein now that we've nabbed him comes from Arab News. The article makes a lot of sense. That really shouldn't have surprised me. There's no love lost on Saddam in just about any part of the world; hardly anyone is afraid of a bully after he's been beaten. I suppose I'm just not used to expecting rational thought out of any sort of fanatically religious people. (Lest anyone come to the conclusion that I have some sort of bias against Arabs, I don't. I'm making that statement irrespective of the brand of religion in question. It's axiomatic, and non-judgmental: faith denies reason, regardless of whether it's faith in Jesus, Allah, the lottery, rabbit's feet or the Great Pumpkin.)
What to do with him? The answer is pretty clear: Let Iraq have him. If they want to kill him, let them. If they want to imprison him forever, that should be fine as well. If they want to let him go, then so be it (as unimaginable as that outcome might be, for this whole justice-and-peace thing to work we'd have to respect their decision no matter what it turns out to be). They had to live with him for the past generation, so they should get the final say-so as to what happens to him now that his rule is over. It's only right. They paid the price for his leadership.
I don't see the Iraqi being terribly just in meting out their justice. I'd certainly find it difficult to be an impartial juror at his trial, and I was never subject to his tyrannical rule. You'd kind of understand if the Iraqis went a little hard on Saddam. Regardless of whether or not the verdict would be fair, a trial in Iraq by Iraqis seems like the only reasonable thing to do. And it's probably the only way to ensure that we don't have Arab conspiracy theorists stirring up trouble for years to come. Can you imagine what sort of fantastical stories could be invented if we tried Saddam here? Or in Europe? They might as well try Saddam in Israel if they want to try him in the U.S. I'm no expert on Arab relations by any stretch, but it seems to me that there might be a lot of traction in the notion of "He is and has been an Arab problem, to be dealt with -- finally -- by Arabs."
I was no fan of the war to be sure (I think you better have some pretty damn good reasons for attacking a sovereign nation), but letting the Iraqis take care of Saddam will have made our efforts there more like we've done them a service in their interests (as well as ours).
I agree that this article's arguments make a hell of a lot of sense. Interesting points about jurisdiction, as well. If we want nations like Iraq to play by international rules, we should at least do the same.
Albeit that Saddam is technically an international war criminal, by far the worst crimes he committed were against his own citizens. I think the justice that would be meted out by an Iraqi court would be both more brutal and more appropriate than anything the First World would come up with (especially given the anti-death penalty stance of many of the key UN nations).
The only concern I'd have would be the possibility of his loyalists staging a coup once he's in Iraqi custody and having him regain power. At least if he were tried in the Hague by special tribunal and imprisoned out of Iraq, it would be near-impossible for him to get busted out by his henchmen... But, frankly, regardless of any of the other atrocities he's committed or had committed in his name, I think any fucker who's ordered chemical weapons attacks on babies should just die, as painfully as possible. Color me barbaric.
Posted by Tess at December 17, 2003 12:19 PM