Posted on 04/23/2003 12:32:07 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Baghdad has fallen. The war is nearly over now and the time will soon come to assess the actions of Iraq’s former leaders. Coalition forces reportedly carry a “deck of cards” with the pictures of 55 Iraqi leaders of the regime and orders to pursue, capture, or kill them. Several of these leaders have already surrendered or been captured. Thousands more as-yet-unidentified Iraqis will doubtless also be pursued for their role in the brutal Saddam state. Once captured, how should they be brought to justice? History offers a lesson.
After World War II, the Allies used three different judicial mechanisms. First, and most prominently, the war’s victors convened the Nuremberg trials where the leaders of the Nazi war machine were tried before a tribunal of judges drawn from the major allied powers. The allies jointly created, staffed and administered these tribunals and they operated based upon principles of international law, independent of the laws of the countries who fought the war.
Meanwhile, each of the allied powers convened its own independent military tribunals where other leaders – often, military commanders such as Japan’s General Tomoyuki Yamashita -- were tried. In the end, hundreds of foreign nationals were tried (for violations of the laws of war) in military courts very much like the military tribunals presently authorized for the Guantanamo detainees.
Finally, once civil government was restored and judicial systems renewed many of the less significant offenders were tried in the renewed German and Japanese courts. Several thousand such trials were held as the German and Japanese populace regained their independence and sovereignty from their ruling dictators.
All three of these options are reasonable possibilities for dealing with Iraq. Indeed, a combination of all three options is the most likely result. Where possible, the coalition forces should defer to a renewed Iraqi judicial system – but not at the expense of delay or allowing those guilty of war crimes to escape punishment. A coalition or U.S. tribunal is especially appropriate for any high-level officials who have tortured or killed coalition POWs or engaged in war crimes (such as false surrenders) that led to coalition deaths.
However, there is one option that should not be adopted – reliance on the mechanism of the United Nations. The permanent International Criminal Court in The Hague was created as part of a treaty the United States has, rightly, chosen not to sign – it lacks the authority to conduct Iraqi war crimes trials. And any temporary court for Iraq (similar to ones already in place of Kosovo and Rawanda) would have to be approved by the Security Council – the same Council that declined, in the first instance, to assist in the end of the Iraqi dictatorship – a poor option indeed, that would needlessly mire the prosecution of war crimes in international politics.
Some in the so-called “international human rights” community have called for UN involvement in the war crimes trial. They have complained that by excluding the UN coalition forces are attempting to limit the scope of the proposed tribunals – that without a UN trial nobody will examine American conduct in Iraq.
And that, of course, proves the absurdity of the “international option.” Any organization calling for examination of American conduct in Iraq has lost all credibility, both with the US government and the American people. The war crimes atrocities – the false flag surrenders, the murder of POWs and the unlawful use of hospitals and mosques as defense points (not to mention the pre-war torture and murder of millions) were Iraqi crimes, not American. The international fixation on alleged American wrongdoing is one more reason why the international courts are an inappropriate forum for judging the Iraqi regime.
It's interesting that virtually all the members of the Iraqi leadership targeted for war crimes trials disappeared around the time resistance collapsed. It's also interesting that Saddam felt comfortable enough that the US was bluffing with its two so-called "decapitation strikes" to go walkabout on August 9, the very day we entered Baghdad in force. I wonder where they -- Saddam, Uday, Qusay, Aziz et al -- are today, and whether they know where the WMD Bush told us about are hidden, and whether they would currently be motivated to pick up a phone and pass that info on to any terrorists they know and, if not, why might that be?
Amen to that.
The blame America first crowd is at it again! Our conduct has been examined to the Nth degree by embedded journalists, and anything perceived as close to misbehavior has been fully reported.
Typical leftist BarbraStreisand.
I think war crimes trials should take place in Iraqi courts. The Nuremberg trials in the International War Crimes Tribunal look less and less good with time. One of the bases of the charges against the defendants there was the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which purported to outlaw war. I was just reading an article in the current Foreign Affairs this morning which cited the Kellogg-Briand Pact as a classic example of an instrument of international law which has no force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.