Reply #14: The issue of trying Saddam

[Jack Rabbit]

As noted in post 12 (see below), national courts are to be preferred to international tribunals. If Saddam can be tried for his crimes in an Iraqi court, then he should be tried for his crimes in an Iraqi court. An international tribunal would come into play only if the Iraqi courts are unwilling or unable to dispense justice.

There are two good arguments for turning over Saddam to an international tribunal. First, in spite of all the hoopla this week, Iraq is not a sovereign state. It is a US colony. There are no Iraqi courts that are responsible to the Iraqis. These courts are responsible to American administrators. Second, that being the case, Saddam should be put in front of an international tribunal to protect his rights. Saddam is guilty of many crimes, but even he deserves a fair trial. He should not be placed in the situation of being tried by those who invaded Iraq without provocation. Part of the idea behind international law is to sweep aside the concept of victor's justice -- which was no justice at all -- and replace it with an equitable system of international jurisprudence. Saddam should have the benefit of such a situation. I have no concerns about the end result of a fair trial for Saddam would be his freedom; I have no doubt that, given a fair hearing before an impartial international tribunal, Saddam will be found guilty and sentenced to spend the rest of his natural life in prison.