Trials after the war

[nicky g]

What do peole think will happen to senior Iraqi leadership captured in the war? Will they be put on trial? If so, by who? What will their punishment be? Would Saddam be executed?

[Clarkmeister]

There is no chance Saddam will be captured. I don't know about other senior leadership, but Saddam is certainly going to be KIA or "unfortunately shot while avoiding capture".

[Jimbo]

"unfortunately shot while avoiding capture". This is an odd statement Clarkmeister. Are you saying it will be unfortunate if this happens or that will be the statement released?

[Clarkmeister]

That will be our tongue in cheek official explanation.

I don't know of too many people who would actually find it unfortunate to find out that Saddam was slain. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[IrishHand]

What do peole think will happen to senior Iraqi leadership captured in the war?
I would imagine that most will be imprisoned, interrogated, then eventually released for good behavior (which would mean cooperating with US interests).

Will they be put on trial?
What on Earth would you charge an Iraqi general with at a war crimes trial? Incompetence? And what charges you you lay on the Iraqi Minister of Agriculture? The Iraqi Foreign Minister?

If so, by who?
The same people who are invading the country - it's typically the victors in a military conflict who write the histories. There's no way we'd ever allow an unbiased or uninvolved party play a role in any war crimes trial - they might not get it right.

What will their punishment be?
Execution is the judgement of choice for war crimes, although length imprisonment is always an alternative.

Would Saddam be executed?
Of course.

[MS Sunshine]

What about the officers of the units that caught the mechanics. Five POWs and seven dead, some with a single shot to the forehead. I don't really care that they were asked their names on Arab TV, but................

Some with a single shot to the forehead

Someone should be put on trial for stuff like this, even if it's American soldiers in the same circumstances. You don't get to murder even during war.

MS Sunshine

[IrishHand]

You don't get to murder even during war.
Umm...you must be thinking of that "war" where people aren't being killed. I realize you're trying to get at the distinction between killing someone defenseless in cold blood and kiling someone in the heat of combat, but in war, that distinction gets blurred really quickly for both sides. It is indeed tragic that many defenseless people are wantonly killed in wars, but that's the sad consequence of wars. I listed a few examples in another post, but I'll cover the main points again...

Yes, it's easy to explain that piling POWs into prisoner of war camps and gassing them, or lining up surrendering opponents and shooting them in turn (or en masse) is a war crime and should be punished. Likewise, it's just as easy to explain that when a tank fires on an enemy tank and blows it up, that's a legitimate killing under our conception of war. However, what about when you herd the enemy POWs into a camp and they starve to death because you don't have enough food for them, your military and your people? What about when they die of exposure in the desert while marching to their destination? What about when you knowingly kill a few hundred civilians when you drop a few bombs in a major enemy city? What about your commandos who have infiltrated behind enemy lines and are now attacking their supply columns - killing the civilian drivers in the process? What about those same commandoes when they later on stealth up on an enemy encampment and kill a couple commanding officers in their sleep before escaping into the night? Which of those are murder, and which are "good" or "acceptable" killings? Let me know if you want more - the grey area you're referring to is about as small as the Pacific.