Thought Experiment: What happens next when/if Saddam is convicted?

Submitted by pumpkin ash on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 2:38pm. Tags:

The charges that former dictator Saddam Hussein is being tried for, according to this story:

On July 8, 1982 an unsuccessful assassination attempt targeted Saddam while he was visiting the town [of Dujail, a small Shiite town in Iraq, located some 65 kilometres north of Iraq's capital, Baghdad, and has around 10,000 inhabitants]. His convoy was engaged in a three-hour firefight but the Iraqi dictator escaped unharmed.

Later, at Saddam's orders, a total of 143 males in the town were killed or executed, including a number of 13-year-old boys, in a reprisal for the failed assassination attempt.

Approximately 1,500 Shiites were incarcerated and tortured, while others, including women and children, were sent to desert camps. Saddam's regime destroyed the town and then rebuilt it. In addition, 1,000 square kilometers of farmland were destroyed and the regime did not allow any planting for 10 years.

Now, 24 years after the events, Hussein and seven other defendants are being tried for crimes against humanity. The trial, the first of a series against Saddam, began before the Iraqi Special Tribunal on October 19, 2005.

So it appears that former Strongman Saddam [our strategic ally at the time] 'did a Fallujah' on the town of Dujail after restive citizens attacked his convoy and attempted to assasinate him. Apparently Saddam meant to set a crushing example of retribution in order to restore order and send an intimidating message to dissuade others from ever even contemplating to attack his authority in the future. Again, rather consistent with the Bush administration's Fallujah Nov 2004 logic. [A year after Evil Saddam's 1982 Dujail 'mini-Fallujah' Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam in Baghdad and bearing rich gifts from the West.]

So this is one of the international crimes against humanity for which Saddam Hussein most certainly will be convicted right before Tuesday's US election (assuming Bush administration's influence and likely horse-trading with the Maliki government and courts remains strong).

Now given Bush's flare for conducting dramatic, degrading demises of designated Evil-Doers (recall the almost pruriently portrayed ends of Zarqawi and the Hussein brothers Udey and Qusay, and the publically degrading published fotos of numerous other captured suspected terrorists [ie Johnny Taliban, KSM, Saddam, etc.]), one might reasonably anticipate that the Bush administration's preferred sentence for Saddam might be some graphic form of execution such as hanging, or firing squad.

I do not think the Bush administration is much concerned about the possibility this guilty decision on Hussein might set an uncomfortable international legal precedent which could down the line apply directly to Bush et al., for his orders on Fallujah. Their past behaviour also clearly indicates that they as though Rule of Law does not apply to them.

But perhaps Alberto Gonzales is buzzing just worriedly enough in Bush's ear about the possible precedent setting hazards of a swift Saddam death sentence for the 1982 Dujail crimes, that it might be better to have Saddam receive something less than a full conviction and death sentence, and/or just go on to an endless sequence of interminabls trials and legal fights,and end up dying in prison a la Milosevic, .

Then there is the Baker Iraq Study Group, whose recommendations are set to be released right after the 2006 election. The rumors are that the Baker plan will involve some form of new Sunni-represented strongman dictatorship or ruling junta capable of crushing the militias and warring factions and bring the country under control and restore security.

And former Saddam loyalists and Baathist diplomats are speaking from exile with confidence about big changes coming soon with the military and political situation in Iraq. Salah Mukhtar, a former top Iraqi diplomat, has even said that Rumsfeld and Rice have recently approached Saddam Hussein with some sort of deal:

Mukhtar revealed, for the first time, that both Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have met with Saddam Hussein in prison during recent visits to Iraq, seeking his help.

"They both tried to convince him to make statements calling on the resistance to lay down its arms and to cooperate in the so-called political process. He rejected that. But they told him, ‘You can choose between the fate of Mussolini and the fate of Napoleon Bonaparte.’ Later, they alluded to something else, involving the return of the Baath party … And now some Arab governments are pressuring the United States to accept the return of the Baath Party to guarantee the stability of Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Yemen and some other Gulf states have contacted the United States to convince the United States to reinstate the Baath Party as the only solution to minimize Iranian influence in the region."

Mukhtar also says that the United States is looking for an Iraqi general to stage a coup d’etat , in order to create a strongman regime that could stabilize Baghdad and crack down on what he calls “Iranian gangs,” referring to Shiite death squads:

Also, there are separate reports that well armed and well trained Sunni insurgent forces are right now massing around Baghdad and gradually choking off civilian supplies going into the city [Digression: how in world can a siege of Baghdad by Sunni forces even be HAPPENING except with US Military command's OK, allowance? (Incompetence or undermanned? I don't think so. Not with Spooky/Spectre gunships and lots of other Death from the Sky wiz-bang mass-killing technology at US fingertips)] (Endgame: The Lights Are Going Out All Over Baghdad and Baghdad is Surrounded:)

Given all these indications, would creating a martyr of Saddam at this juncture be a wise move from Bush's POV?

“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman

pumpkin ash's blog
Login or register to post comments

You know things are getting bad when Iraq's Shiite leaders (#7696)

by pumpkin ash on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 9:02pm

openly worry that US is now getting pro-Sunni:

BAGHDAD, Iraq: Iraq's ruling Shiites have voiced growing concern that the United States is subtly shifting support to Sunni Arabs, the bulwark of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, in a bid to salvage 43-months of democracy building in Iraq and tamp down violence.

The perceived re-energized bid to draw the Sunni insurgency into Iraq's political process marks, in the eyes of anxious Shiites, a worrisome and major alteration of American policy in a period that has seen growing strains in the U.S.-Iraqi relationship.

So are Bush-Rummy-Baker quietly putting out casting calls for suitable Iraqi neo-Saddamist dictators 'we can work with' in case there is need to make a 'tactical correction' to replace the 'failed and ineffectual' [not to mention insubordinate and independent] Shiite majority government?

Could that be why US just might be looking the other way as certain well-armed and trained Sunni insurgent forces, quite remarkably, have recently moved in close enough to Baghdad to surround, and even blockade the main civilian arteries to the city, attack Shiite militias, police forces and armed forces daily and seemingly at will, and seriously threaten the young Maliki Shiite govmt, as the last two diary links above reported?

“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman

(

)

I can just see this administration (#7703)

by Gabriel on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 11:23pm

trying to install a Sunni strongman to avoid the complete takeover from the pro-Iranian shiites. Does Saddam have any cousins?

This place is my vacation.

(

| parent )

Update: (#7673)

by pumpkin ash on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 6:45pm

here is a WaPo story from today on the Saddam trial and expected verdict

“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman

(

)

could you please (#7637)

by Yertle on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 3:00pm

dispense with all the block bold and block colored text. I don't need your highlighting, and quite frankly, I'm not going to read whatever you put up if its written like that because its a) insulting and b) difficult to read.

(

)

Sorry. Thanks for feedback (#7641)

by pumpkin ash on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 3:29pm

To some of us old geezers with weak eyes and short attention spans though, it helps to embold key phrases, names and nouns I want to emphasize, imo.

The bold colored text are links

The italics denote quotes within quotes or editorially inserted annotations.

And there is only one BLOCK (cap) word in the diary.

Made a couple of mistakes with the 'close tags' tool that I will attepmt to edit now.

“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman

(

| parent )

I agree with Yertle here. (#7739)

by Zelig on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 3:25pm

Although I'm sympathetic to your beliefs, this post has the feel of an unhinged rant. Please take a cue from other posters who post long diaries...but with a diffrerent tone, look and feel.

I think that there is a better way to express yourself.

**************

Me: We! -- Ali

(

| parent )

Please elaborate: (#7749)

by pumpkin ash on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 4:46pm

Which parts are "unhinged" and not backed up by supporting links, in your opinion?

“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman

(

| parent )

(Psst, I think that's a gentle couple of hints from folks (#7758)

by Ken White on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 6:12pm

on your side to cut down on the attempted cuteness and / or sarcasm, reduce the amount of what is construed by most to be little other than speculation on your part; that and shorten the links, don't overdo them -- to many detract from your message -- and cut the bold usage by about 75%.)

The K Codes explained HERE.

(

| parent )

Well, I call that progress. (#7760)

by pumpkin ash on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 6:24pm

Going from "unhinged rant" to "attempted cuteness" in a single comment.

Sorry you did not care for my boldness. It helps folks like me focus on the points I want to emphasize.

“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman

(

| parent )

For what its worth, (#7788)

by aireachail on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 8:27pm

I'm not bothered or distracted or put off at all by your use of formatting. It's a nice change and in fact, it looks just like my emails! Keep it up, sez I.

It's amusing to think that someone might read a post, term if "unhinged", and then, once all formatting is turned off, change their opinion.

Hey! Maybe we should have an experiment?

Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham

(

| parent )

Hey, I'm here to help. Zelig calls 'em like he see 'em, I, (#7773)

by Ken White on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 7:59pm

OTOH am the soul of politesse and deeplomacy. :)

Everyone uses bold, or most everyone, anyway. Doesn't bother me but many do find it a distraction.

The K Codes explained HERE.

(

| parent )

bold colored lines (#7642)

by Yertle on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 3:33pm

Yes I know they are links, but they are very very long links, instead of the more typical single word links.

In any case, its just my opinion, take it or leave it.

-Yertle

(

| parent )

Anyone Rioting. . . (#7636)

by M Scott Eiland on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 2:57pm

. . . at the prospect of Saddam being executed--with the exception of principled objectors to capital punishment in general--are probably people we should be shooting at anyway.

As for the method of execution, it's their country, and they were the ones who suffered at his hands the most. It's their call.

As for the rest. . .I'll refrain from commenting further: too much wet paper and tinfoil gives me hives.

(

)

The ones we are shooting at inside Baghdad (#7647)

by pumpkin ash on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 3:58pm

(Sadr's poor Shiites who stayed inside Iraq during Iraq-Iran war) are the ones who suffered most under Saddam, and are the ones who will be cheering loudest if Saddam gets the Mussolini necktie treatment.

Go figure.

“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman

(

| parent )

Recent Diaries