Hmmmm. So you would turn him over to a non-existent gov't that, if it existed, would immediately welcome him and hold a celebration?
Something seriously wrong here. The man is known to have used war gases on his own population.
The US has legitimate war crimes charges against him arising from the conduct of his troops during the recent war.
But he is to be effectively released.
Hmmmm.
According to the govt. of the USA, and perhaps the govts. of Britain, Australia and Poland, the U.S. is at the moment the lawful authority in Iraq.
I would put that differently. I would say the US, Brits, Australians, and a few other nations are the lawful authorities and the ones to conduct war crimes trials. Exactly analogous to Nuremberg.
As you said, the US does not recognize the authority of the ICC. Nor is it likely to.
As far as I know, the 130 or so countries who are not part of the "coalition of the willing" continue to recognize the Baathist regime as the 'legitimate' government in Iraq
The gov't no longer exists, nor will it be brought back into existence.
When it comes down to it, a trial for Saddam would be victor's justice (which Nuremburg effectively was) without the multilateral gloss.
The victor gets to decide who commited which war crimes. Until you can end war, that, realistically, is the state of affairs. Suppose the US caught Saddam and the UN claimed jurisdiction. What it is to do to get the perp? Declare war?
I'll reiterate that I don't agree with the stand our government has taken. And it's been rife with contradictions. All I'm trying to do is sketch out a set of reasoning that follows consistently from their initial position.
OK. But the initial assumptions don't make sense. They amount to letting a butcher go free.
Must be people with low tolerance for smugness.
Low IQ, I think.
Martin vs. Harper will be no contest.
Unfamiliar with this. Who's where here? I presume they are the party leaders for upcoming elections. |
