Some fairness from Rumsfeld: He announced Sunday evening that Saddam Hussein will have prisoner of war protections.

Saddam Hussein will have protections accorded to prisoners of war as U.S. officials try to press him for information on the insurgency against coalition forces, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says.

...."One need not worry that he'll be treated in a humane and professional way," governed by the Geneva Convention that spells out the treatment that prisoners must receive, the secretary said on CBS' "60 Minutes."

The convention prohibits violence, cruelty and torture of prisoners, while also barring humiliating and degrading treatment.

Rumsfeld said that could change if it were determined that Saddam was involved in attacks on coalition forces. Saddam will face interrogation:

The first task of interrogators is to learn whether Saddam has knowledge of any impending guerrilla attacks planned against U.S. troops or Iraqis, intelligence officials said. Officials also want to know where Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri and other remaining senior regime officials and insurgent leaders are hiding.

Rumsfeld confirmed what the news has reported--Saddam so far is not cooperating or answering questions. He has been resigned and compliant, but not forthcoming with information.

We'd like to extend a big thanks to TChris for filling in for us this weekend. He broke the news here on Saddam's capture while we were still asleep, and kept us all up to date on other issues we need to know about. We'll invite him back as often as he feels like posting, and thanks to all the readers who welcomed and responded to him in the comments. TChris, we owe you one.

The LA Times reports on why finding Osama bin Laden will be more difficult than finding Saddam.

Let's keep our eye on the prize. It was Osama, not Saddam, who allegedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks. The war against Iraq is not the same war as the war against terrorism.

[comments now closed.]

We expect that Saddam isn't being turned over to anyone--either the Iraqis or a World Court--until the U.S. has finished interrogating him. We don't expect anything of value to come from the interrogation --either do these experts--but it appears to be the Bush modus operandi.

His information grows more outdated by the hour, and other leaders from Saddam's topped government can move or take other steps to avoid capture....Intelligence officials have previously said they believe Saddam was too concerned with survival and staying hidden to provide much more than symbolic leadership.

"Given the location and circumstances of his capture, it makes it clear that Saddam was not managing the insurgency, and that he had very little control or influence.

In the end, Saddam's account of his weapons program may primarily hold only propaganda value to the administration, once it is publicized, said Robert Baer, a former CIA operations officer involved in efforts to overthrow Saddam in the 1990s. "I can imagine at some point the man's going to be broken, psychologically," Baer said, suggesting interrogators will make Saddam dependent on them for news. "It's pretty clear now there were no WMD. So you get some statements about his intentions to build them - I think he always had the intention to go back and reconstitute this stuff."

They're going to use every interrogation method in the book, short of torture," said Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief. "What are they going to get from him? He's not going to admit he has done all these horrible things. He's going to say he was firm and fair."

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.”