Travis Clark brought to my attention the following item from CNN:
“Under Iraqi law Saddam remains president of Iraq because he was overthrown in an illegal invasion, Hughes said. Therefore, he said, Saddam still has immunity from prosecution.”
And I’m thinking, Gee…that’s an interesting point. Of course, it could turn on the definition of “illegal invasion,” but what if the Iraqi judges say it’s valid? What if he says that they really DON’T have the authority to try him?
Well, he could still be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity.
Now here’s where it gets really interesting: If Torturegate is discovered to go all the way up to Bush, the argument could be made that he, too, is party to war crimes, and is also answerable to the world court.
You see where this is going, right?
Bush and Saddam sharing a cell at the Hague.
I should write that. Be an interesting fiction piece.
PAD
• 
I would totally read that.
You know, the thing is, in this day and age I’m getting cynical waaaay too easily. It’s not even a partisan observation – it’s across the board. I mean, I’m a journalist and even I can see it’s coming more and more to the semantics of the sound-bites.
My perception is that if you lost a family member in 9/11 (or even if you didn’t)you absolutely are entitled to feel its important to bring those terrorists responsible to justice.
My perception of the average Iraqi home-owner who’s just seen his wife and family kileld by a slightly off-course American bomb is that he’s also entitled and not unreasonable to see THAT bombing as outrageous, an act of terror and want justice for them as well.
My perception is that any government is ‘entitled’ to look at the reperussions of their finger-pointing and actions and think ‘We KNOW this, but what’s the reality of the repercussions if we act on it…’ (or, let’s be honest, equally likley ‘Can I keep my job if I’m seen to do this..?’)
Not one of these positions is unreasonable if you happen to be in a certain place at a certain time.
What I’m getting tired of under the current administrations (in the US and UK) is the notion that there is only one perception, one cause of action and one single voice.
“You’re with us, or you’re against us” is getting to sound more and more like a declaration of war, not a rallying call for justice.
John
Please, PLEASE don’t make it a slash piece.
An intriguing idea. Never happen, o’course (for several reasons, depending on one’s level of cynicism), but I’d certainly read that story.
Now, is this an “Enemy Mine” situation where they learn something about each other’s differences, or can Bush not get past the “I’ve got your gun in my office” repressed-phallic-imagery thing?
Or does the latter get too close to Dave’s “no slash” request? 🙂
TWL
How does someone have a “legal” invasion? Does the US have permits so that a foreign country won’t have the same problem here?
This is getting ridiculous. PAD, do you really mean this or are you just having fun with what would be admittedly an ironic situation?
I can understand those who oppose the war, who say it has been poorly run, who think Bush is doing it for his own gain. I strongly disagree, but I can somewhat understand someone taking that view. But to compare Bush with Saddam is beyond my ability to comprehend. Even at its worst, “torturegate” pales compared to the established facts of what happened under Saddam. To compare the two is to say that someone caught shoplifting is as bad as someone who raped and murdered.
Yes, I do support President Bush. But I am not blind to some of his faults. At the same time, I must laugh at all of the complaints about Bush being “in bed with” various corporations, particularly Halliburton. Where were the same complaints about Bill Clinton (other than from a few right wingers such as Rush or Hannity)?
Let me put it bluntly: If ANYONE thinks Bush is anywhere near as evil a person as Saddam Hussein, then they have to grasp of true evil. Perhaps Bush overstated the urgency of the threat of Saddam or the actual existence of WMD’s. But Bush has NEVER committed — or knowingly allowed and supported — the absolute attrocities that happened under Saddam. Anyone who claims otherwise demonstrates that their agenda is simply to denigrate President Bush, not to truly stop attrocities from being committed.
Jim in Iowa
correction: In my frustration, I missed an obvious typo. Here is what I meant to write in the last paragraph:
Let me put it bluntly: If ANYONE thinks Bush is anywhere near as evil a person as Saddam Hussein, then they have NO grasp of true evil.
Jim in Iowa
I could see this as a one act with minimal sets and costumes
At the same time, I must laugh at all of the complaints about Bush being “in bed with” various corporations, particularly Halliburton. Where were the same complaints about Bill Clinton (other than from a few right wingers such as Rush or Hannity)?
This has no truck with me. I didn’t think Clinton was a great president. He had the makings of being one, but he wasted it.
If you must “laugh at” the complaints of Bush in bed with huge corporations, because Clinton wasn’t accused of it, then you have one weird sense of humor.
Was Clinton in bed with corporations? Of course. He just wasn’t as blatant as Dubya is.( i.e. Flying around on an Enron jet to campaign fundraisers, giving Kenneth Lay final approval of the Energy Commission, etc.)
Most politicians are corrupt.
Now is Bush as “evil” as Saddam?
I personally don’t think so… and I don’t think PAD was saying that either… just that it would be interesting to write a piece of fiction about Saddam and Bush in a cell in Hague.
Just like, hmmm… what was the piece that had JFK, CS Lewis and Aldous Huxley in purgatory after their deaths discussing their beliefs? (They all died on the same day)
Though I wouldn’t compare saddam or dubya to any of them…
Travis
I’m thinking it could work as a light hearted comedy. Of course, we need to talk about casting for the film version.
> Let me put it bluntly: If ANYONE thinks Bush is anywhere near as evil a person as Saddam Hussein, then they have to grasp of true evil. Perhaps Bush overstated the urgency of the threat of Saddam or the actual existence of WMD’s. But Bush has NEVER committed — or knowingly allowed and supported — the absolute attrocities that happened under Saddam. Anyone who claims otherwise demonstrates that their agenda is simply to denigrate President Bush, not to truly stop attrocities from being committed.
At the end of the day, it comes down to:
– Bush knowingly approved the use of torture. Like Saddam.
– Bush approved the use of WMDs. Like Saddam.
– Bush had a lot of people executed. Like Saddam.
– Bush’s actions led to a lot of innocent people being killed. Like Saddam.
Now, you can argue semantics of scale, true. But the bald facts are there…
Now, now, Clinton wasn’t in bed with corporations.
He was in bed with his assistants, as I recall…
;->
>At the end of the day, it comes down to:
>- Bush knowingly approved the use of torture. >Like Saddam.
Please cite any actual evidence you have to support this statement.
>- Bush approved the use of WMDs. Like Saddam.
I do not recall ANYTHING about Bush approving the use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons against the Iraqi people – or do you not understand the meaning of Weapons of MASS Destruction?
>- Bush had a lot of people executed. Like Saddam.
If you’re referring to his stint as the Gov. of Texas and their fascination with Ol’ Sparky – he did not order ANYONE’s execution. That was ordered by the Texas justice system. All he ever did was refuse to grant stays or pardons – not the same thing has directly ordering lots of people executed. They were already ordered *by someone else* to be executed.
>- Bush’s actions led to a lot of innocent people >being killed. Like Saddam.
This one I won’t disagree with you on. War is a harsh mistress.
>Now, you can argue semantics of scale, true. But >the bald facts are there…
Um, no – you cannot argue semantics of scale until you prove your “facts”. Provide evidence that the statements you held forth above are true, and then we might start talking semantics of scale.
Ahhh, I’m so glad to see we are back to normal:)
*”Bush approved the use of WMDs. Like Saddam.”*
I don’t think so.
Joe V.
The following quote from the Simpsons episode where Homer and George HW Bush meet came to mind…
Barbara Bush: I really feel awful about your lawn, Marge. George can be so stubborn when he thinks he’s right.
Marge: Well, Homer, too. They’re so much alike.
Barbara: Too bad they got off on the wrong foot. It’s just like the Noriega thing. Now, he and George are the best of friends.
I’m not a lawyer, but whether something is “legal” or “illegal” requires some type of reference point. That is, the law, and the legitmacy of it. Was Iraq or its laws recognized as legitimate? Didn’t Hussein himself break international law? How can he have immunity from prosecution? Immunity under what law? His own? Last time I checked, his laws are no longer existent in his country. The only ones that are are the ones the new Iraqi government chooses to instate.
Um, I think folks are taking this all too literally and simple-mindedly.
Wait a minute. We’re talking politics here….
“Let me put it bluntly: If ANYONE thinks Bush is anywhere near as evil a person as Saddam Hussein, then they have NO grasp of true evil. “
I don’t think W is as evil as Saddam. Hëll, I don’t even think he’s the most evil man in the administration! LOL! Not with sleaze like Cheney, Ascroft and Rove on his side.
JW in Iowa wrote: “Even at its worst, “torturegate” pales compared to the established facts of what happened under Saddam. To compare the two is to say that someone caught shoplifting is as bad as someone who raped and murdered.
I agree that what Bush is accused of doing pales next to what Saddam is accused of doing.
I also can go along with your analogy to shoplifting for one and rape/murder for the other. Both are crimes.
In our society, we occasionally let a first-time offender off with probation or a warning for an offense such as shop-lifting. But it is a crime, and can carry jail time.
Was what Bush did (in our reality) that serious a crime that it warrants jail time? I’ll leave that for a different thread. What Peter has raised is the idea that in a fictional world Bush might be tried, turn out to be guilty of serious crimes, and wind up sharing a cell with Saddam.
Intriguing notion. If a writer of Peter’s caliber wrote that story, I’d buy and read it.
Hmmm. Saddam the “legitimate” president of Iraq? Well, he did get 99.9% the vote in the last election there, without the benefit of hanging chads or Pat Buchanan votes.
I realized that PAD writing about them being in the same cell would be somewhat meant for humor. But there is clearly a suggestion — and I think an intentional suggestion — that Bush is in some ways as bad as Saddam. And if PAD did not mean this (and I freely acknowledge I cannot read his mind), I am hearing many others (including previous posts on this site) make exactly that claim.
If someone wants to accuse Bush of wrongdoing, fine. I believe we should hold presidents accountable. I also believe (in spite of 8 years of Clinton) that character really does matter. But I do not accept the absurd allegations about Bush, such as that he used WMD’s. Where? When? How? When did he order (or stand by and allow) the brutal executions of innocent people? Perhaps you did not hear of Saddam executing some businessmen (I believe it was 5) simply because they were making a profit. They were used as scapegoats because the economy was bad and obviously rich business men were greedy and to blame (and yes, the same logic exists here as well). If Bush was really like Saddam, Howard Stern and Micahel Moore would be in jail right now — or worse!
I believed the same when Clinton was in office. I did not accept allegations, no matter how much they seemed to be true (such as the intriguing fact that some people who opposed Clinton were frequently the subject of a sudden IRS audit). Let’s deal with reality, not the wild allegations of people like Michael Moore. Given a little time, I am sure I could connect Peter David with a mega-corp like Enron and allege that he is taking advantage of others. And with the cancellation of Supergirl and Captain Marvel, you would rightly laugh! You would ask where was his power and influence? The allegations about Bush are great speculations, but there is no real proof.
But all of that misses the real point: Forget Bush. I don’t care if you love or hate him. If you cannot see Saddam is truly a ruthless and evil man, then we don’t even share the same basic view of morality, and we could never agree on anything else in the first place. To say Bush is even close to as evil as Saddam denies how evil and corrupt Saddam really was. I may have disliked Clinton and disagreed with most of his politics and personal actions, but he was never evil like a Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein (selfish perhaps, but not truly evil). Saddam may not have exterminated 6 million Jews like Hitler, but it was only because he lacked the opportunity.
I enjoy PAD’s dark sense of humor most of the time, but not in this case.
Jim in Iowa
Amazing how just because Bush does something wrong, so many pour out of the woodwork to proclaim he shouldn’t be punished for it just because there are worse people out there…
I realized that PAD writing about them being in the same cell would be somewhat meant for humor. But there is clearly a suggestion — and I think an intentional suggestion — that Bush is in some ways as bad as Saddam.
Ah, no. I think you’re projecting.
Hmmm… works from Mozilla, but not IE.
Great job Peter and Glenn
Peter:
While I have no doubt(s) of your abilities as a writer, do you really have the time to tackle another fantasy series?
But whatever happens, I do hope that there is not some cruel twist of fate that allows Saddam to resume control of Iraq.
That would be one horror story that I have no interest in, regardless of who wrote it.
Lee.
It is interesting to hear Bush talk of Iraqi rape and torture rooms while Saddam was around. The only thing, to the best of my knowledge, they’ve never been found. The only rape and torture rooms I’ve seen evidence of is those run by the US that were discovered recently.
Now there’s no denying Saddam is a bad guy. And if he is convicted of crimes fairly I’m sure he’ll get what he deserves. But considering how the US was trying to skirt laws at Guantanamo and did so knowing if things went bad the administration could be tried for war crimes under the Geneva convention it makes you wonder who can be conceivably called a good leader.
In point of fact, Morrison, the rooms were found. They were, as one might expect, rather unpleasant to look at, what with all the old bloodstains and whatnot, and I did wonder what some of those devices were supposed to do (I think some of them might have puzzled Johnny the Homicidal Maniac!), but they were there.
Coverage of the rooms was brief, as most folks were willing to take their existence as read, but I do remember the pictures. Further, there are those still willing to speak of what they went through under the tender mercies of Saddamite thugs.
Denial of the facts serves one’s argument ill…
(On the other hand, I think MOABs and “daisy cutters” might well qualify as WMDs, by the rather loose definition Rumsfeld took to using – after all, if al-Hussein missiles qualify because of their supposedly increased range…)
Now that things are back to normal here we go!
First I do find the idea of Bush and saddam being tried for various crimes and sharing a cell quite amusing.Who gets to be the prison girlfriend in that situation???:)
I believe Mr .David meant it as a humorous work of fiction not his own political view so please lets not have some one fill the void left by the shrouded one.
Though i think if I was an Iraqi citizen and saw a loved one in the prison scandal pictures or
was on the wrong end of a misfired american weapon i could make the argument for Bush’s evil.
By the way if memory serves ,doesnt Bush oppose
one of the world courts??I mean who would they send to get him if he was up on charges ???The French??:)
By the way considering the way the administration was trying to use legal shenanigans and semantics to bypass the geneva conventions in Gitmo and Afghanistan the “better than Saddam” argument seems pretty thin.Also considering some studies on the rise in cancer and contamination of water and soil by the use of
depleted uranium over time, an argument may be able to made over the use of “illegal” weapons in the course of this war.
For those who dont know DU rounds are used to blow holes in armor and tanks like a knife thru butter.But there is concern about the long term effects on the local populace with the remaining traces of uranium that could contaminate the environment.
If recall my past classes correctly an illegal
weapon is one that causes uncontrolled or excessive damage to combatants or civilians,i think radioactive food ,water ,and cancer rates would come under the above heading.
BTW whose the poor guy who has to work as Sadddam’s security detail???As Ollie North so brilliantly put it “a lot of people would like to see him dead”
Hëll In A Cell
Peter David’s latest blog entryAn Interesting Thought/A> is sure to generate a lot of comments. Unfortunately the vast majority of them are exactly what you’d expect from any online political debate. Which is to say, boring, predictable and inflamato…
Jeezus, you guys are so bloody literal minded….you guys are no fun at all…
It is interesting to hear Bush talk of Iraqi rape and torture rooms while Saddam was around. The only thing, to the best of my knowledge, they’ve never been found.
Ummmmm…by the way….I think you should look a teeny bit harder. The abuse by Saddam’s sons are well known, just for starters….(I’m a card carrying liberal and I’m as pìššëd as Hëll at Bush, but I think being truthful and fair is a higher calling).
Posted by Chris Grillo at July 1, 2004 01:21 PM
How does someone have a “legal” invasion? Does the US have permits so that a foreign country won’t have the same problem here?
Well I think a “legal” invasion is UN approved one.
I dunno, maybe a funnier one would be if Kerry picked Saddam as his running mate. He might galvanize the anti-war crowd and he has an enviable record in winning elections, with over a 99% margin of victory in his last run.
The invasion was illegal? Is this punishible by fines or weekends in the pen? Is George Sr. also guilty, or will his case be dismissed because the game was called on account of bad advice from C.P. and the peanut gallery. I’m just griping because I think this should have been settled 12 years ago. It’s a pity Spandau was torn down. I’m sure Saddam could have brightened it up.
Perhaps some of you might remember a TV show called “Insight.” It was made by the Paulist Fathers, as they always said in the signoff, “…a group of Catholic priests who serve their God by serving those outside their church.” The shows had Hollywood talent – I presume all Catholics, whom the show’s main driving force, the late Fr. Elwood Kieser, managed to con into working for free.
Believe it or not, one episode was written by Rod Serling, about an appropriate subject for him – anti-Semitism. Although most of them were written under the pseudonym “Lan O’Kun,” which was probably a bunch of Paulist priests working for free. At any rate, some people called it “The Catholic Twilight Zone” because of the weird tone most of the stories took.
The shows are unavailable now – I think some of the topics might clash with current Catholic doctrine, or seem too harsh for the Church’s PR people. However, this God vs. Satan story would be perfect for “Insight.”
And yes, it would have been shot on one set, with very few actors, and minimal narration or text.
The shows are unavailable now – I think some of the topics might clash with current Catholic doctrine, or seem too harsh for the Church’s PR people. However, this God vs. Satan story would be perfect for “Insight.”
A quick google search found:
http://www.paulistproductions.org/prod17.html
Seems they had over 250 of the episodes produced…
Travis
quick question about typekey. my registration seems to work fine on your site, but when I try it on my own it says that I(owner of the blog) haven’t signed up for that service. is there any specific place I have to point the typekey registration to recognize my movable type? my url is http://www.seldonfoundation.net
I don’t think anyone could reasonably say that Bush is as bad as Saddam.
Saddam, after all, gave orders that resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqis. Bush only gave orders that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis. That’s a huge difference right there…well, maybe not to the dead innocent Iraqis, but still…
PAD