Clark & Dean Commenting On Trying Tyrannts In The Hague (Or Not)

Wesley Clark aced the question, he clearly saw the implications of putting Saddam/Osama on trial at the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity. This issue is very important for strengthening the cause of International Law and working multilaterally.

Unfortunately, Dean didn't understand the importance of this issue and thought it was simply a matter of bringing them to justice.

This is as good a place as any to start making distinctions between Clark and Dean's capacity to handle Foreign Relations & Policy.


MATTHEWS: General, do you think Osama bin Laden, if we catch him, when we
catch him, should be tried here at the U.S. or in the Hague, the international court?
CLARK: I would like to see him tried in the Hague, and I tell you why. I think it's
very important for U.S. legitimacy and for building other support in the war on terror for
trying them in the Hague,e under international law with an international group of
justices, bringing witnesses from other nations. Remember, 80 other nations lost citizens
in that strike on the World Trade Center. It was a crime against humanity, and he needs
to be tried in international court.
MATTHEWS: Well, 3,000 Americans were killed here. Do you believe he should be
held exempt from capital punishment, because if you send him to Hague he will be. They
don't have capital punishment at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that's a separate issue. I think that's a separate issues.
MATTHEWS: No, it's a key issue, because the sentencing limitation, they do not
execute people at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that you can adequately punish Osama bin Laden, and you've got to
look beyond simple retribution against an individual. You have to look at what's in the
long-term security interest in the security in America and you have to look at how we
handle the war on terror from here on out.
MATTHEWS: But doesn’t life in Holland beat life in a cave?
CLARK: Not in a Dutch prison. Chris, they're under water, they're damp, they're
cold, they're really miserable.

.......................................................................................................................................................................................

MATTHEWS: Who should try Osama bin Laden if we catch him? We or the World Court?

DEAN: I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm happy...

MATTHEWS: But who would you like to, if you were president of the United States, would
you insist on us trying him, since he was involved in blowing up the World Trade Center, or
would you let The Hague do it?

DEAN: You know, the truth is it doesn'y make a lot of difference to me as long as he is
brought to justice. I think that's the critical part of that.

MATTHEWS: How about Saddam Hussein? Should we try him in criminal and execute him...

DEAN: Again, we are allowing the Bosnian war criminals to be tried at The International
Court in The Hague. That suits me fine. As long as they're brought to justice and tried, and
so far we haven't had to have that discussion because the president has not been able to
find either one of them.

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - U.S. presidential candidate Wesley Clark (news - web sites) called Sunday for a transparent trial for
captured Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) that ensured him full legal rights under international law.

The retired general and former NATO (news - web sites) commander said Saddam's capture was welcome news that could have an impact on the anti-coalition insurgency in Iraq (news - web sites).


"I hope this will see a diminishing in the violence against American soldiers in Iraq," he told reporters as he arrived in the
Netherlands.


Clark did not say who should try Saddam, but said the trial should be conducted with "the highest legal standards. There can be absolutely no doubt about the rights of the accused."

You must try Osama in the Hague. In fact, through this move you make Osama's capture and trial an international goal, with international consent. You give the international community a stake in his capture and the outcome of his trial. You also help to repair some of the damage Bush has done to our international relationships.

I am so proud to support this man.

Bonus points to Clark for getting ahead of the curve on this. :thumbsup:

edit- read post thru eyelids.

have a cup of coffee!

:)

ok, pour the coffee on my eyelids!

Where's ZombyCoffee when we need it!

:hangover:

Wish the Zomb catered to tea drinkers.

He has been very adamant in stating that Bush & Co. shouldn't have followed up the 9/11 atrocities with a strike on Iraq. He says we were pursuing the wrong enemy.

NEITHER of these guys will be president. It's getting to look like our chances just went from slim to none.

As long as justice is done, the locale of the trial is, at best, a secondary issue. My personal preference would be The Hague, but that doesn't mean justice can't/won't be done if SH is tried in Iraq.

:shrug:

And there are many reasons why we should try Osama in the Hague. This would be either an opportunity to make great strides forward with our foreign policy or to muff a chance for gains.

I still would prefer that both/either be triewd in The Hague, as I said, but seeing that justice is done is still the bottom line.

:evilgrin:

One candidate blinks too much, the other hardly blinks at all.

I wish we had a normal-blinking candidate. :)

If I were an Iraqi, I would want to see the trial in my home land.

Wherever it is, I bet the U.S. will muzzle him somehow. He has too much dirt on the U.S. to let talk freely.

I saw him on Hardball and really appreciated his depth in explaining why Osama should be tried at the Hague. I was surprised he thought that, but when he thoroughly explained his reasons, it made very good sense.

As opposed to HoHo's total lack of understanding of the implications here or abroad.

Takes Foreign and Domestic Policy off the table; both have similar, nuanced positions as well.

Though out of respect to Kerry supporters I haven't posted that (they want him Prez).

Kerry would kick ass as President of the Senate.
Clark would kick ass as Commander in Chief and Head of State.

Although Kerry/Clark would be just fine with me.

Dean was leaving open the possibility that the Iraqis may want to try Saddam in Iraq -- a perfectly valid option, wouldn't you agree?

he seems to understand the issues very well. that it's not just a matter of justice or no justice. but how to bring it about and how it would affect those involved.

It still was a damn fine response. He makes me proud. :)

"I hope this will see a diminishing in the violence against American soldiers in Iraq," he told reporters as he arrived in the Netherlands.

Clark did not say who should try Saddam, but said the trial should be conducted with "the highest legal standards. There can be absolutely no doubt about the rights of the accused."

The case "needs to be as public as possible and the evidence needs to be aired and charges brought," he said.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

He is capable of being President of the Senate.

Clark obviously is more qualified to be Commander in Chief and Head of State.