Can Saddam use the DSM documents in his trial ?

[kentuck]

In his defense, can he show the documents as proof that Bush knew there were no WMDs and that everything he said was a lie. There was no justification for the invasion. And the same guy that accused him of torture and killing has been in charge as tens of thousands of Iraqis have died and George Bush has overseen the torture of prisoners in places like Abu Graib and Quantanamo? Will George W Bush be on trial at the same time as Saddam Hussein? Could it transform into a trial against George W Bush?

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. You know how sweet that would be. Imagine Saddam getting released

and Bush going to jail.

[Roxy66]

6. I wouldnt want to see Saddam released...He's a savage!!

His sons were sadistic. I think Bush should be thrown in the slammer with him!!!!

[democrat_patriot]

8. I think Saddam should stay where he is....

I for one would not be pleased to see him free.

I for one believe * belongs in prison as well.

[haktar]

11. Are you out of your mind ?

It would be fantastic to see Bush & co building roads and cleaning them of mines and ied's as an chain gang, but it would be even better to see Saddam joining them.

[kentuck]

13. yeah...Saddam was like Hitler...

Remember? And he gassed his own people...and he had WMDs..that he would use against us. How much do we beleive and how much do we discount? Surely he was a vicious dictator, or he would not have kept power for so long.

[haktar]

17. LOL

You know exactly that while it is not at all the business of the US of A to accuse Saddam of anything because it supported him in doing it, he was in a war with Iran that killed over a million people.
And yes, the ayatollahs at that time were as guilty as Saddam, Rumsfeld, Cheany and Raygun & co.
Everybody that starts a war should be prosecuted.


On edit: And no, there was no reason to invade Iraq and kill the ordinary people. If anybody is concerned about the killing of ordinary people by ruthless leaders, why does not the whole world has soldiers in Darfur? (Or maybe China, Uzbekistan ...)

[Hippo_Tron]

74. No, Saddam was a vicious dictator, just not a threat to national security

By the late 1990s Saddam was little more than a ruined dictator with little military force and enough death threats that he wouldn't sleep in any place for more than one night. Yea, Saddam killed his own people and conveniently we get to put him on trial for it. But he wasn't commitng massive human rights violations in 2002/2003 so we really didn't save any lives by invading. In fact, we killed 100,000+ people in the process.

[CityDem]

44. Sadam -- Bush -- Condi -- Cheney -- Rumsfeld

All should be wearing orange jumpsuits for the rest of their lives.

[Fire Walk With Me]

28. It would be ironic and turnabout, that Bush might be considered worse.

I wouldn't want Saddam to have any more folks killed, of course not.

Just enjoying a moment about our Bushie :-)

[bribri16]

36. When Saddam was free, what did he ever do to the US or American citizens?

I think some here are even brain-washed. Saddam is not the only tyrrant to walk the face of the earth. Most of them in the 20th century have been OUR tyrants. We helped make Saddam what he became. We made it possible for him to remain in power and now he is our "scapegoat." We incited the people of HIS country to rise up against him and try to overthrow his government. Didn't he have a right to fight back and put down that "insurgency?" He will never come to trial because there is just not much of a case against him. Bush is more of a war criminal than Saddam.

The US sanctions and persistent bombings and invasion have been responsible for as many if not more loss of Iraqi lives than by the hand or power of Saddam. Get a grip people. We have seen the enmey and the enemy is US!!

[geek tragedy]

67. What an astonishingly ignorant post.

Mass murder and torture are never justified. His "government" was never legitimate in the first place. And there is AMPLE evidence of his regime's crimes.

This is exactly the kind of completely ignorant and stupid crap that the rightwingers like to attribute to progressives.

Fortunately, idiotic statements like this are a tiny fringe amongst us on the left.

[Beegirl16]

73. Hmmmmm. Who are you, really?

This is not ignorant crap nor is it stupid. How many US puppets were "legitimate?" Just how many Iraqi deaths is Saddam himself responsible for? How many are Bush I and II responsible. I think the poster makes some great points.

[geek tragedy]

75. I'm a progressive. Who are these people who defend Saddam's right

to kill Iraqis?

One can be a progressive, or an apologist for fascists like Saddam. But not both.

The post was rancid, immoral idiocy. And shame on anyone who agreed with it.

[kentuck]

78. A question?

Was Saddam so bad that George Bush had the right to invade and overthrow him? If not, how bad did he have to be?

[geek tragedy]

80. There is a respectable argument that Saddam should have been taken

out by international efforts. However, Bush certainly had no right to bring about regime change.

The problem is that under international law, internal genocide doesn't justify regime change from outside. It's a flaw in international law, though not one that's easy to fix.

[kentuck]

81. So Saddam was bad but he wasn't that bad that...

Any country had the right to overthrow his country unilaterally?? How much more "bad" did he have to get? ( Devil's Advocate :) )

[geek tragedy]

82. Under international law, internvention in the Armenian or Rwandan

genocides would not have been legal. If Hitler had only killed German Jews, that would not have justified regime change under international law.

No amount of depravity and slaughter legally justifies regime change from another country.

What is legal, and what is right are two different things of course.

[kentuck]

83. Are you saying Bush was "right" but "illegal" ?

Explain?

[geek tragedy]

84. No, Bush was wrong AND illegal.

Bush wasn't going in to prevent atrocities, and he certainly didn't do anything to make things better for Iraqis.

Intervening in Rwanda would have been right BUT illegal.

[NYdemocrat089]

58. Saddam still murdered a lot of people.

Even if he didn't have WMDs he was still a horrible dictator.

[kentuck]

63. Was he worth 1700 dead Americans and ten times as many injured?

What do you think?

[NYdemocrat089]

70. Oh no...I didn't mean it like that!

All I was saying is that even if there were no WMDs the Iraqi government isn't going to just let him go. They will still find him guily for the murders.

[Tiggeroshii]

66. Bush should be in jail WITH Saddam.. ya know, they should be cell-buddies

}(

[AllegroRondo]

2. Doubtful

but I hope his lawyers try it anyway.

[Imagevision]

24. DOUBTFUL? - WHY, SOUNDS LIKE EXCELLANT DEFENSE MOVE

[AllegroRondo]

31. My reasoning

the first case they are trying him for is a mass-murder back in the 1980's, probably because they have some excellent documentation for it. The DSM has nothing to do with this time period or any possible defense case as to why these acts were committed or why Saddam is not responsible for them.

[Yupster]

45. This thread seems very Americo-centric

Saddam will be tried by Iraqis for spoecific things he did to Iraqis.

My guess is the Iraqis don't care very much about WMD's or other American interests. They want to know why their brother, father, son disappeared and what happened to them.

I don't expect Sadam will be allowed to try to make it into an Iraq-US fight when the people making the rules want to make it into an Iraq-Saddam fight.

[mzmolly]

3. I'm guessing these papers will help him a great deal.

But, I fear the right wing will twist this to "Supporting Saddam" if we state the obvious in this context.

[geek tragedy]

35. The papers won't help Saddam a bit, thank goodness.

Saddam was committing horrible crimes and mass murder while he was Reagan's ally and aWol was snorting coke and driving drunk.

Saddam will hang, and he deserves to.

[mzmolly]

38. Ya got a point.

But I think the powers that be will have a different perspective on the matter than they would have were saddam taken out of power via an Iraqi uprising KWIM? As it is now we removed him under false pretenses and his defense is sure to use that issue in his defense. That can only help him if he's to be helped at all. But, perhaps he's beyond help of any sort due to his crimes?

[geek tragedy]

39. I doubt the Marsh Arabs and Kurds and families of his victims are going

to care how he fell from power.

[mzmolly]

40. Well, as you know there is speculation that the Iranians killed the Kurds

with chemical agents, not Saddam. I am certain his defense will tell another side of the story.

I honestly am not an expert on Iraq. I assume that the terrible things I've heard about Saddam are true, but to my understanding they are quite typical actions of leadership in the Mideast.

[geek tragedy]

41. The Kurds certainly don't think so. The theory that Iran gassed the

Kurds was advanced by Republican flunkies because at the time Saddam was our ally.

Saddam was much nastier than the other regimes in the area. Egypt and Jordan certainly aren't Jeffersonian democracies, but they're not the same as Baathist Iraq either.

[mzmolly]

48. Perhaps, but compare Iraqi women to other women in the region.

I watched interviews with Iraqis when Peter Arnett was on MSNBC. I watched with an open mind. I was surprised by what I learned. Many Iraqis had praise for Saddam, and it was not out of fear. In fact, women were participating in Saddam's cabinet and allowed to be fully educated unlike their counterparts in surrounding areas. I came away realizing that Iraqis were as divided about their Government as we were. I'm not comparing living in the US to living in Iraq, but I am saying that views on Saddam obviously differed among Iraqis.

And, while Saddam was no champion of womens rights, women in Iraq fear now more than ever that their rights may return to those of the dark ages.

http://www.equalityiniraq.com/htm/iraq.htm

Additionally, the Saudis are certainly no more humane then Saddam. And, frankly Gitmo demonstrates that WE are replacing torture via Saddam Hussein, with torture via the US Government.

As for gassing the Kurds it's not cut and dry:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm

I don't believe everything our Government tells us frankly.

Granted Saddam was a "bad/evil/nasty/murderous" guy from what I gather, but he's not any more of a tyrant than many others in the area. I am not defending him, but I don't think it was our place to oust him based on human rights issues alone. For example, it is legal to kill a girl in Egypt if she "shames" her family by getting pregnant out of wedlock. :shrug:

[geek tragedy]

49. Uh, you swallowed a serious load of bullshit.

People in Iraq were not free to speak out against Saddam. How do you know they spoke in his favor without fear?

And Peter Arnett grotesquely kissed up to Saddam and served as his propagandist in order to get preferential treatment. There's a reason why no decent news service will touch Peter Arnett with a ten-foot pole.

Of course, the war was unjustified and women do face severe challenges in Iraq.

[mzmolly]

50. I don't think Arnett kissed up to Saddam, and I'm not so sure who

swallowed the shit. ;)

Dare I say Mr. Arnett is more of an expert on Iraq then you or I as he was in the area for many years as a reporter. He also made many friends in Iraq, and reported in a balanced manner .. which is why he is no longer "reporting" for GE owned MSNBC/NBC.

As for Arnett, he's working for National Geographic now. I think they're reputable.

I fdel that the trial of Saddam Hussein will garner us much information, and I imagine we'll all debate the merits of both sides.

However, I'm certain he'll be hung regardless, and Bush will claim some sort of victory.

Glad we agree the war was unjust, that IS the bottom line.

[geek tragedy]

51. CNN basically admitted that they slanted their coverage in Iraq in

order to get better treatment from Saddam's regime.

As far as Arnett, during the US invasion he was interviewed on Iraqi TV with a member of Saddam's military proclaiming that the United States had "underestimated the determination of Iraqi forces."

Combine that with his Tailwind debacle, and there goes his credibility.

[mzmolly]

53. I wish I'd have seen the so called slanted reporting.

reporting. We had a definite bias toward war in the US media CNN included. I had not seen bias toward Saddam Hussein in the MSM? Were that the case, those who spoke out before war would not have been marginalized.

Further, I do think we under estimated the determination of Iraqi forces, thus the current quagmire KWIM? Perhaps they aren't in offical uniform ... and we refer to them "insurgents," but it doesn't change the fact that they are fighting against us and people are dying.

Correction: National Geographic fired Arnett as well. I think he paid a price for balanced reporting and caring about Iraqis personally.

[geek tragedy]

55. CNN admitted that they didn't report a lot of nasty stuff about Saddam's

regime.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/20/1050777161410.html?oneclick=true

[mzmolly]

57. I know the Right Wing caused a stir when Mr. Jordan supposedly claimed

that the US was targeting media in Iraq. I guess they believe him only half the time?

I'm out :hi:

[Wildewolfe]

4. Probably not

Saddam is being tried for Crimes committed in his own country years ago... various murders, mass murders, attempted genocide, crimes against humanity etc.

Despite the war having been illegal as all get out, I won't shed a tear for Saddam himself being gone. Those are reserved for our dead soldiers and the thousands of innocent dead in iraq itself.

[kentuck]

5. But there is a bigger picture...

when one country decides to unilaterally invade another country to take down its leader on a pack of lies, is that justifiable in an international context of laws between nations? Who decides who is unfit?

[Wildewolfe]

9. Saddam was by any sane definition

A monster. No one on either side here would have blinked an eye if he had suddenly been taken out by some sniper instead of us invading the country. Saddam is guilty of enough stuff to earn him the death penalty there hundreds of times over.

The DSMs simply provide the ammunition to follow Saddam's trial with Georgies... They don't mitigate Saddams crimes against his own people one bit.

Nice vision, though I doubt it would ever happen... * and Saddam in adjoining cells awaiting trial....;)

[kentuck]

12. I agree...

See my post below..

[Yupster]

46. Who decides that?

Maybe a World Court.

Certainly not the judges in the Saddam trial.

I wouldn't think they'd have the least interest in that.

They want to judge Saddam for the abuses he did against the Iraqi people. That's what he will be tried for. I expect a parade of torture victims and grisly photos.

I don't expect much success in Saddam trying to talk about the larger more complicated picture while there's a victim on the stand who had his tongue amputated for speaking against Saddam.

[Imagevision]

25. SADDAM-GENOCIDE? - SUPPLIED BY THE USA

AND THEY'RE WHAT? DISAPPOINTED THAT HE ACTUALLY USED THEM??

[manic expression]

30. Attempted genocide?

Saddam was a totalitarian dictator, but genocide is not the right word. The CIA still puts the deaths at the Kurdish village that was 'gassed' by Saddam in the hundreds. No mass graves have been found in Kurdistan involving Saddam (the graves containing, collectively, around a few thousand people found in Iraq were in the south). The mass murders were committed when Bush I got the Shiites to rise up and then turned his back on them, allowing them to be cut down by Saddam's forces. Their blood is on the US' hands just as much as Saddam's.

Lock Saddam in prison, he was horrible, but let's keep things in perspective. Also, we support the disgusting regimes in Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere. We even have a prisoner torture agreement with Syria (we send them our prisoners so they can torture them).

[Yupster]

47. I think the better genocide claim

could be made against the Marsh Arabs who he did try to destroy as a culture by purposely ruining their environment.

However, I expect the crimes he'll be tried for to be a lot more specific than generic genocide.

[manic expression]

52. I would love to see him on trial for such acts

however, I cannot help but be bothered by the fact that we have done the same to the Native Americans (Mount Rushmore is defacing a sacred mountain, Yucca Mountain is also important, assimilation, eugenics, etc...). Also, Turkey was just as bad to the Kurds as Iraq, and I do not see anyone calling for holding anyone responsible for that.

First, we should try to keep things in perspective with Saddam, and second, we need to be consistent.

I expect some of the crimes he'll be tried with may be without much support (we provided him with weapons and intel for gassing Iranians, we gave him permission to invade Kuwait, etc...)

[Yupster]

61. You're looking at this from an American point of view

though.

Yes it's true that we did bad things to the Native Americans, but the Iraqi victims of Saddam and his judges aren't going to be thinking of Mount Rushmore when they're deciding Saddam's fate.

I think one of America's biggest problems is that we always see every problem and issue through our eyes, when often it has nothing or little to do with us.

Sometimes we can help most by just staying out of the way.

[geek tragedy]

7. Bush's crimes are no defense to his own. eom

[kentuck]

10. Tell that to the media....

They defend themselves behind Bush's crimes... But i agree, if Saddam can be prosecuted for crimes against his people, he should be. And the same goes for George W Bush or any other leader that lies to their people and gets them killed by those lies.

[damntexdem]

14. He'd be better off ratting on Rummy:

"Sure, we had and used WMDs. They were given to us by the US, as well as by France and Russia, and the US encouraged us to use them on the Iranians. Rummy shook hands with me on that. They kept quiet when we used them on the Kurds and Shia. We kept them until we lost the Gulf War and were told to get rid of them. Then we did. And, hell, they attacked us in the Gulf War after seeming to have said it was OK to invade Kuwait."

"Yeah, I used torture on Iraqis, I murdered Iraqis, I kept Iraq terrorized and firmly under my thumb. That was what the U.S. wanted from me -- a stable Iraq. That's what Rummy told me when he shook my hand. Now, the U.S. says it doesn't like what I did. Well, how good a job are they doing holding Iraq together? Sure, they've tried torturing and murdering Iraqis, ruling by terror, but they don't know how to do it like I did. They'd have done better to have stuck with me."

[PurityOfEssence]

15. At Nuremberg, Doenitz used Nimitz and Roosevelt

The immediate command telegram to Pearl Harbor after the attack--mind you, Congress still hadn't convened to declare war--was to state that military units should act as if a state of war existed between the two countries. Commanders were instructed to immediately commence unrestricted submarine warfare. Since the inherent barbarism of unrestricted submarine warfare was the principal crime Doenitz faced, this was VERY significant.

Killing is killing. War is war. Degrees of brutality are definitely to be discussed, but "them" being worse than "us" is an issue of degrees.

Saddam will never get a fair trial, any more than Manuel Noriega will. They are prisoners of the Bush cartel.

[kentuck]

16. Will they have a facade of a trial ?

Or will they just move Saddam to a trophy prison in the US until he dies??

[Wildewolfe]

19. Assuming Saddam survives the trial

He will be executed by iraq for his crimes.

[PurityOfEssence]

65. He'll learn to play cribbage with Manuel Noriega

There's NO WAY he can be allowed to stand trial; he knows too much.

[Yupster]

62. What did Doenitz get?

Wasn't it 20 years? or was it 10? I forget. As far as I know he just fought a war as head of the submarine fleet.

Goering was accused of making war plans in secret. His defense was that he didn't remember reading the US war plans in the NY Times either. He got the death penalty.

[applegrove]

18. No. He is being tried for murders. When he found an enemy he killed

or harassed everyone around them. There is no defense for that.

[kentuck]

20. Has that been documented as fact ?

Just curious? I don't doubt that he would do that but I was wondering where the information came from? Hopefully not from the Washington Post or NY Times??

[applegrove]

23. It comes from people in Iraq. We knew this at the time. Kurds get

uppity - gas a few villages. I was alive and listening to the news at the time.

Saddam is a creep. He was the neocons monster in the 1980s. The people of Iraq will put him on trial and try only a few of the 500 cases.

Saying that Saddam was evil and had an evil past does not make me an apologist for the neocon war. They went in on WMD. They went in badly and in a poorly planned way. They are responsible for the lack of peace there in the last few years.

Wait for the trial before you judge. Those Iraqis have alot to go through as any trial on such a monster will show. Saddam was not an angel or your regular political murderer.

Let the Iraqi people have a chance to talk about it.

Yes the neocons wanted war to fulfill grandiose plans. Yes Saddam was contained in the 1990s to some extent. Yes he kept on murdering.

Don't let Cheney dance you outside of yourself by looking into his lizard eyes and being for the opposite of everything he talks about.

Saddam was a monster. Human beings should put monsters on trial. The Iraqis will. Give them a chance to tell their stories.

It does nothing to diminish the neocon agenda or make them right. Because neocons are already wrong. I would guess that Saddam's defense will involve talk of Rumsfield, Cheney & Britain's complicity in arming him and cutting deals.

You have nothing to fear from the Iraqi trials.The neocons do. A trial on Saddam would be the glue that would finally get Iraqis together. I could guess that the reason why we have not seen a trial yet is because the neocons want time to push liberals into being allies of Saddam... before all the facts are out. They desperately want to radicalize the left and call protesters anarchists at G8 conferences even though those same 'anarchists' were actually pushing for debt forgiveness in Africa..a policy Bush has finally adopted. Don't fall into the trap. Wait for the trial. What did you know of OJ or Michael Jackson before the trial? Oh wait - you don't know about the MJ trial. Neither do I. Cause we have been here instead of watching the pathetic news.

Wait until the testimony. Wait until Saddam's actual trial before you make decisions.

[Pepperbelly]

21. I don't think the charges have shit to do with WMD.

Irrelevant to Saddam's own behavior which is what he is being held responsible for.

[kentuck]

22. And the Sheriff is Dubya Bush, bringing him to justice....

adn then the townsfolk will have a fair trial and he will be hung by the neck until dead. The Sheriff rides out of town at sunset and the Iraqi people wave at their hero?

[Pepperbelly]

29. Sherriff W needs to take his own sorry, lying ass to jail.

And his accomplices as well.

[KoKo]

26. Hey...we "Propped him Up...We took him down Twice" ...If I was his Lawyer

I would bring out ALL THE DIRT...I'd even use Zinn's History of the 21st Century as evidence...I'd drag in Wolfowitz/Pearle and the whole Reagan and Poppy Administrations...I ask for the US to declare what we gave him and how we supported him...and I'd get into the Saudi's and Bushes and the whole Kissinger/Baker BFEE pile of influence that caused us to now do another VietNam over something so trivial as the US Propping up ANOTHER PUPPET DICTATOR who "Bolted..went off on his own" and our SOLDIERS DIED BECAUSE THE US..."SECRET GOVERNMENT/SHADOW GOVT...LIED THEIR ASSES OFF.

That's what I think....:shrug:

[meppie-meppie not]

27. I would think he could but he won't be able to because the US is

censoring his testimony.

[CTLawGuy]

32. Saddam should be at the Hague, not in Iraq

Iraq has no real government, and thus no real legal system. Imagine if Saddam sympahthizers took power in a coup and set him free? The current govenrment can't stand on its own right now.

Saddam should have been shipped to the Hauge to face war crimes trials there. but I guess Bush doesn't like international law.

[realFedUp]

33. "I guess Bush doesn't like international law."

No, that's why the "detainees" stay detained
in numerous gulags all over the world. So
convenient for a "democracy"

[sandnsea]

34. The charges are for crimes against Iraqis

Which Saddam did commit. I don't even know why anybody would want him to get away with what he did. This is just the kind of thing that causes people to be leery of putting a Democrat in the White House and just the sort of thing that causes me to tell the left to STFU.

[meppie-meppie not]

42. good point

[mzmolly]

43. No ONE want's him to get away with what he did. But the question is

interesting none the less.

[sandnsea]

54. OH certainly

Because we all know liberals are terrorist appeasers who want Saddam to get off scott free. :eyes:

Why can't people see how bad even entertaining this line is?

[mzmolly]

56. I do see it, and I commented on it. But I won't let THEM define what I

discuss. They don't worry about what we think, and I don't understand why we should let their lies dictate our actions. If they are too stupid to understand the complexity of certain conversations - that's not our problem.

[sandnsea]

59. Oh for pete's sake

YES it matters. This is the exact kind of nuttiness Rove drools over. Since it is completely irrelevant to anything important in any way, shape or form, why in the world give it to them on a platter?

Here Karl, talk about the lefty loonies wanting Saddam to get away with torture and gassing people instead of Bush starting an illegal war.

There's nothing interesting about it at all, it's flat stupid, and it most certainly IS a problem.

[kentuck]

64. Well. in that case....

Bush is a hero. He rescued those people from their dictator. he should not be punished for bringing down Saddam. Choose your poison.

[sandnsea]

76. Oh bull

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[kentuck]

79. So you think Bush was wrong to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam?

If Bush was wrong, how many "atrocities" would Saddam have to commit before you think it would have been the "right" thing to do?

[mzmolly]

69. What the hell is nutty about suggesting that Bush's march to war under

false pretenses might somehow favor Saddam at trial? The man has attorneys and will have a legal defense ya know. Some think that's "nutty" too.

And, share with me who the hell HERE said they wanted Saddam to get away with torture? Can you point me to the post? You sound like Rove right now spinning in the direction you are, it's ridiculous.

Also, if your not interested why are you here discussing this?

[geek tragedy]

71. Bush's reasons for going to war are IRRELEVANT to Saddam's guilt

for genocide, mass murder, and torture.


Defense lawyer: Your honor, we have evidence that Bush lied to the American people about Iraq's WMD's.

Judge: So freaking what. This is a trial for genocide, mass murder, and torture committed over a period of decades. The evidence is inadmissible.

[mzmolly]

85. Perhaps it will not be relevant at all.

I think regardless of it's supposed relevance, Hussein's attorneys will bring it up to make him look like a victim vs. a mass murderer. That's the point of the OP. They'll also bring up Gitmo and say Saddam had no more control over his military/police force than Bush did in Iraq.

I guess we'll see come trial time.

[sandnsea]

77. Post #1

"you know how sweet that would be".

No, I'm not interested in any discussion on Saddam getting away with torture and murder. Only the discussion about people who think it would be "sweet" and are stupid enough to tie the DSM to a trial to free Saddam Hussein.

[mzmolly]

86. I think the poster meant "sweet" as in "ironic" not "sweet" as in yippee?

But, I would prefer a different choice of words as well.

[napi21]

37. He could use them, but I cdoubt they would help him.

I don't know exactly what the charges are against him, but having WMD's probably isn't one of them.

[Disturbed]

60. "Saddam will hang, and he deserves to."

Why bother with a trial?

Is would be a thorny situtation if the Bush Regime were tried and found guilty of High Crimes of lying to the Congress and of commiting an illegal Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. Wouldn't that invalidate Saddam's removal as Pres. of Iraq?

[geek tragedy]

68. Saddam's regime was an illegitimate dictatorship.

The idea that he should somehow have a right to return to power is foolishness.

[Sir Jeffrey]

72. It depends on what he is charged with...

He will probably be tried for war crimes (using chemical and biological weapons), which happened in the 80s and would not be addressed in the DSM at all.

The issue of whether the US invaded Iraq illegally is 100 percent proven to be a war crime. The ICJ would be the proper venue for sovereign Iraq to sue the US (as Panama did in the 80s), and if Iraq ever did decide to go that route then they could most definitely use the DSM.

Think about this though: Iraqi law is based upon the Sharia/Islamic Code...but we are assembling piecemeal a sort of half-assed Western code /Shariah body of law to punish Hussein as a war criminal. Islamic countries based on Islamic Law do not generally recognize Int Law outside of certain fundamental principles that would be silly to ignore (sovereign states and the right to self determination, for example).

So any talk of whether Hussein will be "convicted" does not take into account the fact that an entire body of law is being written right now to ensure that he is convicted.