The Saddam Predicament: University community members weigh the issues

On Dec. 14, 2003, one thing became quite clear in the normally uncertain land of Iraq: "We got him."

Speaking of the capture of Saddam Hussein in a small hole by a farmhouse, Paul Bremer, the U.S. Chief Administrator in Iraq, announced to the world that the Iraqi president had been taken with little resistance and was in U.S. custody.

However, despite Saddam's capture, much remains unclear in Iraq.

Nobody is sure how he will be tried for the crimes of which he has been accused. There is still no clear exit timetable for American and other forces in Iraq. Moreover, it is still unclear how the war in Iraq will affect the American political climate.

So for some insight on these questions, The Daily Princetonian asked the following four questions of several community members — about how, where and who should try Saddam and what political implications it holds for the United States.

Professors Gary Bass, Michael Doran, Robert George and Peter Singer, as well as Wilson School Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter and President Tilghman weighed in on these issues.

(1) What would you like to see happen to Saddam Hussein?

(2) Who do you think should ultimately decide that question?

(3) What are the consequences of his capture, symbolic and otherwise, for the future of Iraq?

(4) What are the political consequences here of his capture?

Please note that responses have been edited for length.

Gary Bass, politics professor

(1) He should go on trial for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. [It] must be fair and open.

(2) If possible, the tribunal should be set up by the Iraqi people, with some kind of participation from Iran and Kuwait — Saddam's primary victims . . . the hope is that an Iraqi tribunal, with international support, will have enough legitimacy to deliver justice.

(3) [It] may be a really difficult experience for Americans. He gets to mount a defense, and that means he's going to use his microphone to pound pan-Arabist rhetoric and denounce the U.S. This will be filtered through Arab state media outlets, and through editorially independent but distinctly anti-American outlets like Al-Jazeera.

(4) It helps to offset the public perception that the postwar in Iraq is going badly. Politically, that helps Bush and hurts the Democrats, especially Howard Dean . . . [T]he real consequence that matters here in the U.S. is whether there will be more or less terrorist attacks on American civilians. That's what counts. That means, in part, persuading people across the Arab and Muslim world to have a better impression of the U.S.

Peter Singer, bioethics professor

(1) He should be tried by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Unfortuantely this won't happen, as the Bush administration has refused to join the ICC and has actively attempted to undermine it.

(2) The prosecutor of the ICC.

(3) Not, I fear, very great.

(4) A boost for Bush, I suppose, at least in the short-term.

Shirley Tilghman, University president

(1) I would like him to get a fair and open trial that would reveal to the world the kind of crimes we believe he committed. And given that I don't believe in the death penalty, I would not be in favor of his execution, but if convicted, I would be in favor of his being imprisoned for life.

(2) It should be this panel of credible, well-respected jurists.

(3) I think his capture is extremely important, both practically and symbolically for the ability of Iraq to move into the future. As long as he was at large, there was a huge dark specter hanging over the country. And I think his capture has gone a long way to giving the country a sense that it can now move on.

(4) I think it was a great benefit to the Bush administration. As long as he was at large, it was a serious political problem for the Bush administration. Had he still been at large next November, I think that would have had a very negative effect [on Bush's chances in the election].

Robert George, politics professor

(1) I would like to see him tried for murder and other crimes. If convicted, I would like to see him imprisoned for life at hard labor.

(2) The people of Iraq, acting through some form of reasonably representative government . . . I do not favor a trial by the United States military, an international tribunal, or any other non-Iraqi body.

(3) The most important practical consequence of his capture is that it assures the people of Iraq that he will not be returning to power . . . that tyrants can fall and be brought to justice.

(4) It was obviously great news for President Bush. Its consequences are also positive, I think, for Senator Lieberman and Congressman Gephardt, who have supported the war. The consequences are almost certainly negative for Governor Dean and probably negative for General Clark. As far as I can tell, they are neutral for Senators Kerry and Edwards. Ambassador Mosley-Braun, Congressman Kucinich, and Rev. Sharpton, at this stage do not appear to be serious contenders, and the capture of Saddam doesn't affect their standing.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, Wilson School dean

(1) I would like him to be tried by an Iraqi tribunal with one or more judges from other countries preferably Kuwait and or Iran: countries that were also victimized by Saddam with a lot of international assistance . . .

(2) This really should be something for the Iraqi people and for other victims of Hussein . . . he should be brought to justice primarily by the Iraqis but other countries representing themselves and also the international community should have a voice.

(3) For many Iraqis it is vital evidence that he's not coming back unlike previous occasions. So the symbolism is very important. It's not everything. It won't substitute for rebuilding infrastructure, providing basic security, or providing genuine political transition.

(4) [I]t helps validate the expenditure of both lives and treasure but I think much like for the Iraqis it doesn't in and of itself [constitute] justification for our presence in Iraq. We need to continue with a clear plan for getting the country back on its feet with our allies and getting out.

Michael Doran, near eastern studies professor

0(1) I want to see him prosecuted and punished. More important than the punishment is the fact that he be put on trial and that the Iraqis and the world be forced to come to grips with what he did. It's a political event rather than a legal one.

(2) That has to be an Iraqi court. I can't see it going anywhere else. If it were treated like Milosevic and he were taken to the Hague or the UN were deeply involved outside Iraq there would be consequences in Iraq that would be detrimental to the U.S. position in Iraq and the future of Iraq . . . It's going to be quite an undertaking for the fledgling Iraqi state. They don't have a legal system yet: they have his legal system.

(3) In the short term it is an absolute first step toward creating a new order . . . [One hopes that] the wind is going out of the sails of the opposition movement . . . I hope it's the case but I wouldn't want to stake my reputation on that assessment.

(4) It seems to me that it has taken some of the wind out of the sails of the criticism of the Bush administration. But certainly not all of it.