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 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His information grows more outdated by the hour, and other leaders from Saddam's topped government can move or take other steps to avoid capture....Intelligence officials have previously said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

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.

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.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., wants the House Armed Services Committee to hold hearings on allegations that Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's former company overcharged $61 million for fuel in Iraq. There's also the matter of an alleged $67 million overbilling for supplying cafeteria services to soldiers in Iraq. Gibbons said the charges are "an absolute outrage."

"If these allegations which were found in a Pentagon audit of government contracts is true, then it's time for Halliburton to break out its checkbook and refund American taxpayers," Gibbons said.

Gibbons, a committee member, is the first member of Congress to call for congressional hearings of the company. His request comes as Democrats demand further investigations.

While he doesn't think Cheney has any involvement in the Halliburton contract, Gibbons said the House committee should examine whether the contract was issued in exchange for campaign contributions.

Gibbons thinks Halliburton is just greedy. He's also upset another Pentagon audit that found "unclean conditions and rotting food in more than one cafeteria serving American personnel."

Cheney was the head of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000.