NationStates Jolt Archive

Should Saddam Hussein be punished for all crimes carried out by his administration under his watch?

I was just wondering what crimes Saddam carried out personally and what was carried out by his administration. What did Saddam order to be done and what crimes against humanity were carreid our by members of his administration without his orders or consent?


That being said:
Should Georgie Bush Jr. be held accountable for all crimes carried out by his administration under his watch?

He can be charged for crimes he committed personally, and for crimes he ordered to be committed. There won't be any problem finding plenty of either.

He can be charged for crimes he committed personally, and for crimes he ordered to be committed. There won't be any problem finding plenty of either.


Which I hope he is but is the evidence already out or are you saying this because you worked closely with him and know this to be true from personal experience?

Saddam ran Iraq. I've seen plenty try and deny that, but it's true. We've got his records, as well as personal correspondance between himself and his ministers.

I've heard countless times about how "sure, there were terrorists in Iraq, but Saddam Hussein didn't invite them," and all about how Saddam had no control of the North and other parts of the country. 90% of that talk is garbage, and clearly so. Saddam made many of the decisions that will probably cost him his life personally, and expressly, in writing.

Saddam ran Iraq. I've seen plenty try and deny that, but it's true. We've got his records, as well as personal correspondance between himself and his ministers.

I've heard countless times about how "sure, there were terrorists in Iraq, but Saddam Hussein didn't invite them," and all about how Saddam had no control of the North and other parts of the country. 90% of that talk is garbage, and clearly so. Saddam made many of the decisions that will probably cost him his life personally, and expressly, in writing.


You've seen "plenty" deny that Saddam ran Iraq? Who exactly? Also, you didn't answer the rest of the questions.

Which I hope he is but is the evidence already out or are you saying this because you worked closely with him and know this to be true from personal experience?

Of course I have no more personal experience than you do. I'll stand by my statement though. Personally I hope they hang him and televise it, live.

"What charges are Saddam Hussein likely to face?

FM: It seems likely that he will be charged with crimes against humanity, war crimes and possibly genocide as well as violations of certain Iraqi laws such as the squandering of public assets and the abuse of power.

The war crimes charges are likely to stem from abuses in the war with --- Iran (not Iraq) and the conflict with Kuwait. He is also likely to face crimes against humanity charges for attacks on the Kurds and other ethnic minorities, such as the chemical assault on the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988 that resulted in 5,000 deaths, for brutal and devastating attacks against the Shi'a communities in the south in the early 1990’s, and other major incidents.

How much evidence against Saddam Hussein has been collected?

FM: Literally tons of evidence has been collected over the years, and more has come to light since the Ba'athist regime fell. After the first Iraq war, the U.S. government, working in conjunction with human rights groups, brought home millions of pages of documentation , some of which can be presented in front of the tribunal.

Also, what’s helpful here is that the Ba’ath government kept detailed records on their own dreadful dealings."

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/international_justice/w_context/w_cont_11.htm

Also, what’s helpful here is that the Ba’ath government kept detailed records on their own dreadful dealings."[/url]

This true. In a sense, he will be convicted by his own administration because of the documentation. It is strange why this is so. It was the same case with the Nazis. Why would such regimes keep such detailed records when they know that one day it could be used against them?

Leaders are culpable for any crimes they order. They are also culpable for crimes carried out by their administration that they knew about, but did nothing to stop. If they actively helped cover it up, they are just as culpable as those who actually committed the crimes.

If a crime was committed by an administration member, and that person was removed from their position and punished, the higher-ups are not culpable. If a crime was committed by an administration member and the higher-ups never knew about it (fat chance, but I suppose possible), they are not culpable.

This true. In a sense, he will be convicted by his own administration because of the documentation. It is strange why this is so. It was the same case with the Nazis. Why would such regimes keep such detailed records when they know that one day it could be used against them?

They don't think anyone will ever dare hold them responsible.