Here's another viewpoint on the capture of Saddam, in Monday's Arizona Republic:

The cost was too high for a two-bit tyrant

Tyrants are a dime a dozen. Some are more horrible than others. Saddam is/was one of the most despicable. As it is, and would be with other tyrants, humanity is served when they loss power.

While we celebrate the capture of Saddam (a former ally), let us continue to wonder if chasing down tyrants is an appropriate mission of the United States. If so, there are many suitable candidates. Some are at least as despicable as Saddam.

This fact notwithstanding, we should recall that the Bush administration sold the invasion of Iraq not on the wish to capture a tyrant, but on the urgent need to capture weapons of mass destruction. It was WMD, not a tyrant, which was supposed to be the threat to our national security. We have not yet captured even one itty-bitty WMD, and the price we have paid to capture a tyrant is far greater than the value gained.

In the afterglow of the "good news" of Saddam's capture, we must not forget what it is costing us to get him. Never mind the economic costs, the deaths of about 500 American soldiers and the injury of about 3,000 additional soldiers is far too great a price to pay for one two-bit tyrant.

Furthermore, anyone who believes that violence in Iraq will decrease because of the capture of Saddam is in for a huge disappointment. However, this capture is a great opportunity for the PR-savvy Bush administration to declare "mission accomplished" and bring our soldiers home.

Jerry Bowman, Phoenix

By T Chris

Lawyers on behalf of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union will ask a U.S. District Court judge on Monday to make permanent a temporary restraining order that blocks enforcement of a law restricting the availability of housing to sex offenders. By prohibiting convicted sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center, the law places about 30 percent of some Iowa towns "off limits." It has prevented some offenders from returning home to live with parents, and has kept others in prisons or halfway houses for lack of alternative housing.

Randall Wilson, legal director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, argues that the law "violates the Constitution in several ways, the most serious of which is that it essentially banishes people from the state." Problems arose shortly after the law was enacted.

Police and correction officials have complained of sex offenders filling up halfway houses while waiting for places to live, overpopulation of offenders in legal areas, and intentional disregard for the sex offender registry -- Iowa has about 4,500 registered sex offenders.

Similar laws exist in ten states. They seriously jeopardize a rehabilitated offender's ability to rejoin society while offering illusory protection: is a town safer if a former sex offender lives 2,005 feet away from a school but not 1,995 feet away?

By T Chris

In non-Saddam news ...

Having presented testimony from mental health experts that Lee Boyd Malvo had been so influenced by John Muhammad that he was incapable of knowing right from wrong, the defense is expected to rest Monday. Over defense objections, prosecutors are likely to present rebuttal evidence in an attempt to establish that Malvo lied to the defense experts.

Update: the Defense has rested and the prosecution will now begin calling rebuttal witnesses on the issue of Malvo's mental health.

What is the Defense Department and media's fascination with playing and replaying Saddam's medical exam? We think it's gross and in poor taste and we don't care to see it. The DOD has provided it to media outlets. You can view it here. Doesn't the Geneva Convention prohibit the depiction of prisoners of war in humiliating cirumstances? Didn't we complain when our soldiers who were captured were featured on Al Jazeera?

Here's an outline of the probable charges to be brought against Saddam:

• Genocide: Allegations of genocide are expected to include the gassing of Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s. After the 1990-91 Gulf war, evidence emerged of 270 mass graves across Iraq.

• Crimes against humanity: The torture and imprisonment of thousands of Saddam's people are in breach of international laws. Individual victims of torture will be able to testify against him to support the charges.

• Murder: In 1996, he ordered the killing of two of his sons-in-law who had defected to Jordan the year before. Iraqis whose relatives were murdered by the regime could hold Saddam liable for deaths in his name.

• Waging illegal war: Saddam's war against Iran, in which one million people died, and his invasion of Kuwait were in breach of international law.

[comments now closed]

If Saddam Hussein is tried in an international court, the death penalty is off the table. If he's tried in Iraq, it's available. The Iraqi Governing Council wants him tried in Iraq. According to CNN tv, Wesley Clark today said he prefers an international tribunal.

Only if the trial is fair can we trust in the integrity of the verdict. There will be greater credibility around the world for any verdict and punishment if Saddam is tried in an international court. Iraqi jurists don't have the necessary expertise. We, like the majority of nations and people around the world, oppose the death penalty. We hope he's tried in an international court.

Here's more on why he should be tried in an international court. Here too.

Update: Last March, we wrote about three law professors who opined on the legal options if Saddam were captured.

The Democratic contenders for President had varied reactions to Saddam's capture. Some are now siding with Bush and criticizing Dean--dumb in our view. The capture of Saddam is an accomplishment but it is not going to make Democrats pro-war.

Gephardt:

"I supported this effort in Iraq without regard for the political consequences because it was the right thing to do. I still feel that way now and today is a major step toward stabilizing Iraq and building a new democracy."

Kerry and Lieberman:

....Kerry and Lieberman sought to remind voters of their support for Bush's war resolution, even as they criticized the president anew for not reaching out to allies.

"If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place," Lieberman said. "I consistently supported Saddam's removal for the past decade, and am prepared to do what it takes to win the war on terrorism at home and abroad."

Dean's reaction was the best--and classiest:

He deflected questions about the Democratic presidential race. "President Bush deserves a day of celebration," Dean said. "We have our policy differences but we won't be discussing those today."

Wesley Clark makes a good point:

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, another strident critic of Bush's war policy, told reporters he still stands by past statements opposing the war. "This was not a necessary war," he said. "All candidates want the U.S. mission in Iraq to succeed, and I don't want to see another American soldier injured there. But success in Iraq does not change the judgments of an administration that took us into war. I don't think that the capture of Saddam Hussein in any way invalidates those concerns."

We like Edwards', Sharpton's, Moseley Braun's and Kucicnich reactions as well:

Edwards said he wants greater international involvement in Iraq. "I hope President Bush will use this opportunity to chart a course in Iraq that will bring in our allies in a meaningful way to achieve a democratic and peaceful Iraq," Edwards said.

Time Magazine has these notes from Saddam's first interrogation. He's not cooperating.

When asked “How are you?” said the official, Saddam responded, “I am sad because my people are in bondage.” When offered a glass of water by his interrogators, Saddam replied, “If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?”

The interrogators also asked Saddam if he knew about the location of Captain Scott Speicher, a U.S. pilot who went missing during the first Gulf War. “No,” replied the former Iraqi president, “we have never kept any prisoners. I have never known what happened.”

Saddam was also asked whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. “No, of course not,” he replied, according to the official, “the U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us.” The interrogator continued along this line, said the official, asking: “if you had no weapons of mass destruction then why not let the U.N. inspectors into your facilities?” Saddam’s reply: “We didn’t want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy.”

What should happen to Saddam now? The U.S. says it isn't sure.

Iraqi officials were more certain. Adnan Pachachi, a member of Iraq's Governing Council, said Saddam would face open, public trial inside Iraq. That was echoed by other members of the council as well.

"There's no question that the process will be an Iraqi process," Pachachi said.

Amnesty International has weighed in as well:

The human rights group Amnesty International said Saddam should be given prisoner of war status, and should be allowed visits by the international Red Cross.

"Like any other criminal suspect he is entitled to all relevant safeguards under international law, including the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment, and of course the right to receive a fair trial defense lawyer and the minimum safeguards as any other prisoner," said Nicole Shoueiry, a spokeswoman for the group.

Shoueiry said Amnesty has questions about the tribunal's legitimacy "because it was set up without consultations with Iraqi civil society, Iraqi lawmakers and international experts and observers, including the United Nations."

We think he should be brought before the International Criminal Court--only the U.S. refused to sign the Rome Treaty or join. Here's an open thread to discuss it.

Update: Some problems with a trial by Iraqi war crimes tribunal.

We're not just reading the the U.S. coverage--The BBC has good news coverage. There is also a reporter's log, kind of like a blog, with breaking news.

Statement by Governor Dean on the Capture of Saddam Hussein

WEST PALM BEACH-- Governor Dean issued the following statement this morning:

"This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community.

"Our troops are to be congratulated on carrying out this mission with the skill and dedication we have come to know of them.

"This development provides an enormous opportunity to set a new course and take the American label off the war. We must do everything possible to bring the UN, NATO, and other members of the international community back into this effort.

"Now that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty."

By TChris

Saddam captured in underground hideout near Tikrit

• No shots fired as 600 U.S. troops raided location
• Saddam said to be "cooperative" and "talkative"
• U.S. holds former leader at undisclosed location
• Iraqis celebrate in streets of Baghdad

The New York Times reports:

Coalition troops discovered Mr. Hussein hiding in a hole below a walled compound on the farm, located in the town of Adwar, about 10 miles from his hometown of Tikrit.

Military authorities said that Mr. Hussein had put up no resistance and that not one shot had been fired in the operation. They said they were able to confirm his identity using DNA tests.

This is likely to give Bush a bump in the opinion polls. It remains to be seen whether the situation in Iraq will improve as a result of Hussein's capture.

Update: Here's how he was captured.