What if we capture Sadaam?

Oh, it'll definitely go to War Crimes court, World Court or something like that.

Civilian courts (which one? US Supreme? They haven't held a trial there in, I think ever) probably wouldn't have jurisdiction. And it's probable that country-specific military courts would also not have jurisdiction, or he'd be tried here, and in Britain, and in Iraq, and in Iran, and then the Kurds would get a shot, etc. There would be so many fights about punishment and where to incarcerate him that nothing would get done.

I imagine it would be set up a lot like Nuremburg, with the victors conducting the trial under American-British-style rules of evidence and procedure. If imprisonment were the sentence, he'd be incarcerated in his own country (like Speer was incarcerated in Spandau prison). If death were the penalty, he'd most likely be executed in his own country.

Here's a kicker: what if he successfully fights off conviction with the insanity defense? Then what? Treatment in Iraq?

IF ... and its a big bunch of "IF" ... hostilities do break out and Saddam survives and is "Taken", I would not be surprised to learn of an investigation into "The Mysterious Circumstances" of his "Apparent Suicide" while in Allied Custody. More likely, I think, is that he will skitter out of the country and try to hole up in a comfortable burrow somewhere, bringing about a whole new flap.

Perhaps even worse, the shooting is over in a hurry, Freindly Forces swarm over the countryside searching earnestly, and no sign of the bugger can be found, rumors abound, and Al Jazeera suddenly starts airing video tapes they acquired in some "Unspecified Manner". Saddam probably would be a greater bother as a ghost than as a martyr.




timber

What if you don't win? What if N Korea and Iran join in and deliver pre emtive nuclear strikes against Tel Aviv Seol and Washington?
What happens if the victorious allies demand Bush be handed over to them? He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Jes,

I strongly doubt it will be the new war crimes court. We have done all we can to undermine its very existence. It would serve our interests in this case but the admin feels that it will beused against us in the future and was pretty insistent about getting our exemption.

Jurisdiction is an interesting issue. We have demanded (and received a tentative agreement) the extradiction of the Pearl murderers and I wondered about the jurisdiction issues then.

The captives from Afghanistan would face the same jurisdiction issues.

I reslly doubt civil courts will be used because anything other than an emphatic "guilty" and tough sentence is going to be a thorn in the US's side.

timber,

I strongly doubt he will be captured voluntarily unless it's trough extradiction. I agree that a "suicide" is possible and perhaps likely.

Steve,
Where would Iran get it's nukes? And how would DPRK deliver the nukes they are suspected to have? And even if that happens (it won't) how will that change the odds in the war?

I hope they do catch him alive, but I don't think he'll allow himself to be taken.

I suggest he be cloned 2,300 times and executed once for every person that was murdered on 9/11.

Craven

Just suggesting a few more IFS.

There are two sides in this conflict, one of them will win. (The only serious war game ended with Iraq winning)

But to answer your questions

Turkmenistan
Taepo Dong 1 and 2
Quantatatively, impossible to say. Qualatatively, in favour of Iraq.

Equus,
What does Sadaam have to do with 9/11? And why should innocent clones suffer?

But to answer the serious part of your post I don't think we want to capture him alive.

Steve,
Those DPRK missles don't have the range. I don't remember the war game giving Sadaam the victory but yes the U.S. suffered initial causialties that were substantial.

Steve, the purpose of wargames is to expose planning flaws. An Enemy Win in a wargame is a good thing ... it lessens the potential for an enemy win in the field. The example you cite exposed a flaw discovered and exploited by a very competent US commander charged with simulating Iraqi response. His innovative tactic was brilliant. It has been addressed. Few if any Iraqi commanders may be expected to possess the expertise and imagination of a product of our War College and Staff Schools.

As to DPRK capability to deliver nukes, that remains undemonstrated and subject to doubt. Their missle tests have not been unqualified successes, and simply putting a missle somewhere is a far simpler problem than putting it somewhere specifically intended with a nuclear warhead on it. Though not at discussion in this thread, I have previously and elsewhere stated I see The Korea Matter is one emminently ammenable to diplomatic resolution. Kim, in his own wierd way, is bargaining. He has not pulled, cocked, and aimed his gun, he has simply mentioned he intends to go get his gun. Saddam, on the other hand, has shot at us. A rare headline is "Gunman Arrested After Shootout With Police".



timber

War Crimes Court? I thought you guys didn't recognize that court?


Oops - Craven already pointed that out...

I agree he is unlikely to be captured - I would have thought if he is not quickly disposed of by US forces - (died of wounds received in capture, suicide etc) he would be killed either in a last-second coup, or by people near him with a grudge or hoping to get clemency themselves if he is removed.

If he is - what about trial in Iraq under whatever the new government/nascent clan is in Iraq - presumably his worst crimes were against his own people...?

we hardly recognize our own courts

Doesn't augure well for the prospect of our recognizing someone else's, does it?




timber

Well I think its not a forgone conclusion.

If Iraq sank a couple of aircraft carriers in a pre emptive attack, the US might go home with its tail between its legs.

Not to say it COULDN'T be done, Steve, but sinking an American Aircraft Carrier, particularly a Flag Carrier in a Carrier Battle Group, would be an endeavor of great complexity. US Carriers are designed to withstand an enormous amount of Battle Damage, and Amercan Naval Damage Control Training and Practice are about the best there is. In fact, American warships have demonstrated recently that they are quite resistant to sinking. The US Destroyer Stark took 2 Iraqi Exocets in the '80's, and while grievously damaged, still retained significant, though reduced combat capability. The British Destroyer Stark took a single Exocet during The Falklands War and sank with heavy loss of life. The Brits also lost a Container Ship and a Hospital ship to mixed bombs and missles. The US Destroyer Cole was severely damaged by the boat-bomb that struck her, but again, there were relatively light casualties, the crew was able to confine the damage, and the ship retained significant combat capability.
During Viet Nam, an accident aboard the Carrier Enterprise resulted in several 1000# bombs and numerous rockets, along with 10s of thousands of gallons of jet fuel, creating a huge column of smoke for a day or so... the ship was hurt, but didn't sink. Senator John McCain was right in the middle of that ... he was at the time a Naval Aviator.

An interview with a retired Ex-Soviet Flag Admiral indicated The Soviets considered conventional weapons would be of little effect against an American Carrier. The "Approved Doctrine" for attacking a carrier involved numerous simultaneous Air and Sea launched missles from all points of the compass, coordinated with torpedo spreads from several subs firing from different angles. US warships are built with battle damage in mind. They tend to be a bit heavier and pricier than their cousins from other navies. They can take hits, and a Carrier takes a helluva lot of hitting. With a Carrier's own Air/Sea defense systems coordinated with the defense systems of the Carrier's attendant vessels, just hiting a Carrier is a tricky proposition, let alone hitting it numerous times


timber

sure you're right timber

anyone told saddam?

If not, he'll figure it out if he tries it. Throwing ordnance at an American Attack Carrier is likely to do little more than piss it off and focus its attention.



timber

Saddam probably has 100 scenarios for escape planned.
He probably has exile locations in wait.

I do not think this man will allow himself to be in the custody of the UN or US.

If he were apprehended, the UN would try him for crimes against his country, and breaking the provisions set after the first gulf war.

I don't think the US would touch him in US court, or take possession of him.

What do you think would happen if the international consensus is to try him in the WCC?

That would be fine with me, I think, CDK. IF he is comes into custody, and IF The World Court would try him fairly and publicly, establishling unequivocably and addressing appropriately his guilt, I don't care whose justice bottle he drinks from. That boy needs his hemlock, however and by whomever it is served to him.



timber