Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
News

Saddam Hussein Arrested 3314

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the submitted-two-hundred-times dept.
MoonChild was the first of hundreds to submit that MSNBC, ABCNews and others are reporting that Saddam Hussein was arrested. This isn't normal Slashdot subject matter, but I figured it was worth mentioning.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Saddam Hussein Arrested

Comments Filter:
  • by Faust7 (314817) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:13AM (#7715765) Homepage
    Considering the crimes Saddam Hussein has committed against people of several countries, would it not be logical for his ultimate trial to be held in the form of an international war crimes tribunal, a la Nuremberg?

    Will the newly-established Iraqi government, or perhaps the U.S. itself, take steps to prevent such an event from occurring?

    I foresee international tensions rising from their already heightened point over this matter.
    • by k98sven (324383) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:36AM (#7716015) Journal
      Considering the crimes Saddam Hussein has committed against people of several countries, would it not be logical for his ultimate trial to be held in the form of an international war crimes tribunal, a la Nuremberg?

      Yes it would. There already is such a court, the International Criminal Court [icc-cpi.int]..
      The problem is, the USA opposes it.

      This was not always the case; Funny you mention Nuremburg, where the american procecuter Robert Jackson expressed a desire to create such a permanent tribunal.

      I feel that is the America the world admired and respected.
      Todays unilateral foreign policy is a shame on America, and the ideals America is supposed to represent. And it is the reason why the USA no long commands the same international respect.
  • by mgcsinc (681597) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:15AM (#7715781)
    For any of those who think this whole story is offtopic, just rememeber that for many this is basically the only place they get news, and someone had to let them know.
  • by whovian (107062) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:15AM (#7715787)
    US stock markets surge Monday.

    The US detains Saddam indefinitely to prevent Iraqis from assassinating him.

    Bush gets re-elected.
  • Fair trial? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Blue Master (675893) <{wiesener} {at} {samfundet.no}> on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:16AM (#7715807)
    The question now is: Will he get a fair trial? As far as I could make out from the news broadcast here (Norway), he will face a court specifically assigned to try the cases of members of the former regime. Now, this court was assigned by who, excactly? Let me guess, Americans? Wouldn't it be more fair to try him in the international court in Haag?
    • by koi88 (640490) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:45AM (#7716095)
      Everybody deserves a fair trial. That's what democratic states promise to their citizens, and their enemies.

      This basic right used to by highly valued in the US, too. Of course, now suspects are declared "terrorists" and put away to Guantanamo and other places, or left to "friendly" governments for torturing.

      The very reason that a few days ago a suspect 9/11-collaborator was set free by the court was a lack of proof against him (likely the US' fault for not allowing an important witness to testify because said witness is "interrogated" by the CIA at an unknown location).
      In Germany, at least, people can be sure not to be held prisoner without evidence.

      The value of democratic principles can be seen best whan you look at how a state treats its enemies.
  • No connection (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bgfay (5362) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:18AM (#7715821) Homepage
    Keep in mind folks that this has absolutely nothing to do with September 11. Sure, a dictator is out of power. That's fine. Remember though that to topple him, our government invaded a sovereign nation without international support or a plan for after the initial attacks. The administration is going to spin this as a wonderful thing for Americans and a sure sign that the administration is tough on terrorists. This isn't the war on terrorism (as ill-thought as that war is). It's the war on Iraq that was started many years ago by the father and now reengaged by the son. Nothing more. Iraqi citizens may rejoice, but there is no reason for us to do the same.
  • Good. So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ringel (31107) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:20AM (#7715842)
    Capturing Saddam is a good thing. He's a Very Bad Man(tm).

    The fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with...
    Al-Qaeda,
    making America safer,
    the War On Terrorism,
    WMDs,
    or any of that other stuff aside, yes, he's a Very Bad Man(tm).

    Bush &c. will get an approval bump out of this, right up until the next terrorist attack, when it is plainly shown that the whole Iraq boondoggle was an expensive distraction so that W could feel like a man, and so that people wouldn't ask questions about the actual problem.

  • by close_wait (697035) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:29AM (#7715943)
    So, after 9 months during which the alleged Weapons of Mass IP Infringment failed to materialize, they finally got him. I hope they string him up.

    Just out of curiosity, why *was* Darl in Tikrit?
  • by understyled (714291) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:33AM (#7715988) Homepage Journal
    Saddam has not been captured. He did not bury himself in a cellar. The infidels are committing suicide at the gates of the great fortress in which he resides. No worries.
  • by Leffe (686621) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:36AM (#7716017)
    I read on one of the news sites that he will be tried in Iraq, by Iraqi's, which would be best IMO.

    Not for the current administration. While his guilt is certain, if he is given anything less then a showtrial in which he is gagged and without a real lawyer he could have a field day embarrassing the US, and in particular reaganite members of the current Bush administration. Imagine for a second that we've got to where they are charging him with gassing the Kurds. At this point, assuming his lawyer has any clue, he'll supoena major members of the Bush administration to come and reread their own words in defending Iraq's "right" to gas the Kurds, both when they went to UN and vetoed the resolution to punish Iraq for it, and when they went to the Senate and successfully stopped the "Prevention of Genocide Act" the senate was trying to pass against Iraq for the gassing. He'll also likely bring up other things. For instance when the charge of trying to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons comes up, he'll pull out the records showing how the now Bush Jr. serving members went out of their way to provide him with high quality US chemical weapons, samples of Anthrax and other bio weapons and the supplies needed fast track his own bio weapons program, and over $1 billion dollars in components for nuclear weapons and delivery systems for the above weapons (which is where Iraq's scary SCUD missles all came from). From that a defense lawyer could easily paint a picture that the administration at the time (and of whom many now serve under Bush) fully supported Saddam in using those weapons (Iraq had already been declared a terrorist nation years before, so it's not like they thought he was nice at the time).
    • by JFMulder (59706) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:34AM (#7716560)
      Thanks for writing in a coherent way what I was thinking all along.

      The Bush administration doesn't want a real PUBLIC trial to take place, because Saddam could reveal everthing the Bush Senior administration told him during the Gulf War, everything the US, France, Britain and about every other country did for Irak and him WHILE he was in power and known to be a dictactor. This isn't going to look good at all for a lot of countries if this guy gets to speak publicly.

      I wouldn't be surprised for a second if they pulled a "Lee Harvey Oswald" and have Saddam conveniently killed or "suicided".
  • by BTWR (540147) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [3robignacirema]> on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:42AM (#7716055) Homepage Journal
    Well, Election 2004 ended this morning. Like him or not, Bush is the man right now. He accomplished his goal, and a grand victory is always embraced by a leader's people. Dean's whole schtick was anti-war. While there still are merits to being anti-war (men/women killed, cost $$$, no WMD), Dean just lost his biggest stance against the war: that it hasn't truly accomplished anything.

    That picture of Saddam in a disgusting non-bathed attire, dirt-filled beard will be remembered forever.

    Plus, his trial for crimes against humanity will probably begin just around November 2004 (yeah yeah, cue trolls calling for "America's crimes against humanity, etc...")
  • by pagaman (729335) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:52AM (#7716165)
    root@iraq# emerge unmerge saddam-hussien
    root@iraq# emerge democracy
    Calculating dependencies
    !!! all ebuilds that could satisfy "democracy" have been masked.

    !!! Error calculating dependencies. Too unstable. Please correct.
    root@iraq# emerge friendly-dictator
    Calculating dependencies
    !!! all ebuilds that could satisfy "friendly-dictator" have been masked.

    !!! Error calculating dependencies. Could knife us in the back. Please correct.

    root@iraq# emerge friendly-dictator-council
    Calculating dependencies ...done!
    >>> emerge (1 of 10) app-admin/friendly-dictator1 to /iraq
  • Enough already (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:55AM (#7716185)
    Quit with the silly comments about Saddam not being linked to Al-Queda, or Bin Laden not being caught or WMDs and what have you. It is stupid. Don't pretend like you are The Great Enlightened One and the only person that can see the truth and the rest are mindless sheep.

    Slashdot is a fairly sophisticated and educated crowd. Yes, we know that Bin Laden hasn't been located. Yes, we know Saddam isn't the head of Al-Queda. Yes, we know they haven't found WMDs in Iraq. None of that has ANYTHING to do with Saddam's capture and it is insulting that you think we need to be told.

    That Saddam is captured is a good thing. Even if you hate Bush, think the war was wrong, unjustified and so on you cannot honestly say that the world is not a better place without him being a free man. Will this magically fix all the problems in Iraq? Of course not, doesn't mean it's still not important.

    This is important if for no other reason than that we have a concept of justice, that people should pay for their crimes. Saddam now can be made to do that. He can be tried for what he's done. More important than any punishment itself is the process, society enforcing order and justice.

    So knock it off with the stupid comments. We already know, and it's insulting and makes you look childish.
    • Re:Enough already (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JFMulder (59706) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:25AM (#7716469)
      You're 100% right. What people don't like though is that people use this as an excuse to justify the war in Irak. Yes, it's a perfectly 100% good reason to go to war with Irak, these people deserved to be freed, and I'm glad they were, but don't think for a second that the US did this ONLY for the good of Irak's people.

      I'm really happy for these people, but at the same time it's a shame that they weren't freed because they we're badly treated. Oil was always their #1 target. Freeing the people, WMD and false links to Al-Quada were only excuses to go there.

      That's what sickens people. And we have every right to be. This isn't childish at all.
  • by Mmm coffee (679570) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:18AM (#7716401) Journal
    Woke up, saw news, had karma to burn, felt like saying something, dunno why. Here goes.

    (1) I am sick of all the people here, on Fark, and on countless other sites mindlessly bitching about the conservitives and/or the liberals. All politicians are going for the $ no matter what party you support, both sides are insane, and the majority of people are centrists with a slight leaning one side or another. Extremists from both sides are equally mindless, and as always are the ones to make the most noise. Nobody cares about your blind following, please either say something with an ounce of intelligence behind it or STFU. Duckspeak is annoying.

    (Side note: All you people adding intelligent debate and thoughts reguardless of your political affiliation: keep it up! People who help the good content to noise ratio are the unsung heroes of the internet.)

    (2) I am very glad Saddam is found. One less asshole in the world to worry about. However...

    (3) Until I hear of nukes with "Hi, there!" painted on the sides being dragged out of Iraq, we have still invaded Iraq for no good reason. The only reason the UN went along with this little war is because US intelligence lied about WMD and thus believed that they posed a serious threat to neighboring nations. No WMD = unjustified war = unjustified deaths on both sides.

    (4) A clarification of #2: Again, I am glad that he's taken care of. However, it is not America's place or anyone else's to say "I disagree with that X nation is doing, bomb them". If we have the right to bomb another nation to "free the people" then why doesn't China have the right to start WW3 with us in order to "free the poor American people from the totalarian fist of the Bush regime" or such other bollocks? Only if a nation has the power to pose a severe threat to neighboring nations or the world at large should drastic military action be taken against them.

    (5) Where the fuck is Osama?!?! He flew those planes into our buildings, not Saddam. Why the hell is he no longer a high priority? I've had a close friend die in the WTC and you're telling me that capturing the man directly responsible for my friend's death isn't a priority?!!!

    (6) I sure hope they don't do anything stupid like torturing Saddam. Should we treat him inhumanely a _LOT_ of people will be severely pissed, a lot of them nuts enough to do insane crap like fly planes into our buildings. What we receive 10 years from now will be a direct mirror of our actions now, after all.

    (7) Speaking of Osama, shouldn't we be going after the top brass at the CIA for training him? I mean, they basically started the largest terrorist movement in the world..

    (8) The war on terrorism can never end, for it is not a static entity. A war on Iraq can end. A war on an action anyone can do can not end. The Bush administration has started a war that will never end, a war that they can exploit to give them a lot of power they are not intended to have (and have done so). This situation scares me.

    (9) It saddens me that I have yet to hear anyone question "Where will this take us in 10 years? Or 20?" We are repeating past mistakes and worrying only about the immediate future, it seems. The amount of debt we are leaving to future generations through this war alone makes me afraid of our impact on the future. Let alone the legal precidents we have set, loss of rights, new (probably unconstitutional) laws, nations we've pissed off, etc.

    (10) I need coffee. Damn parents calling me at 6am telling me to turn on the TV when they know damn well that I don't own a TV and haven't for years... grr...
  • by Munra (580414) <[slashdot] [at] [jonathanlove.co.uk]> on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:19AM (#7716414) Homepage
    It's official... Osama Bin Laden has been declared World Hide and Seek champion ;O)

    Manta
  • by aled (228417) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @12:53PM (#7717340)
    Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
    A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
    Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
    A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
    Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
    A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
    Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons Of mass destruction, did we?
    A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
    Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
    A: To use them in a war, silly.
    Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
    A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
    Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if They had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
    A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
    Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
    A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
    Q: And what was that?
    A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
    Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to Invade his country?
    A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
    Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
    A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
    Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
    A: Right.
    Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
    A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
    Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
    A: I told you, China is different.
    Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
    A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
    Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
    A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
    Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
    A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
    Q: Like in Iraq?
    A: Exactly.
    Q: And like in China, too?
    A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
    Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
    A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government Passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being
    communists and started being capitalists like us.
    Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
    A: Don't be a smart-ass.
    Q: I didn't think I was being one.
    A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
    Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
    A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a Legitimate leader anyway.
    Q: What's a military coup?
    A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
    Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
    A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
    Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
    A: I never said Pervez Musharraf
  • by PizzaFace (593587) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @03:15PM (#7718569)
    You're hearing it here first, folks. This is good news for Saddam Hussein and bad news for Bush. Saddam now gets a bath, a shave, clean clothes, a lawyer, and a global platform from which to reaffirm that he had no weapons of mass destruction and to accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy if not war crimes. He also has such a high profile that he can't be shipped off to Syria or Pakistan to be tortured. The Iraqi politicians who run his trial will, in the interest of national reconciliation, give him exile or a long prison term, from which he will be reprieved in 10 or 15 years. He will have time and opportunity to leave his mark on the history books.

    Bush would have been better off if Saddam had been killed instead of captured. I'm shocked that he wasn't; the army didn't give his sons (and grandson) a chance to surrender. Bush's version of history would have been safer if Saddam had either been killed or been left in his rat hole.

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.

Working...