SaddamÂ’s Capture Means Trouble for U.S. Officials

UPDATE: NMU (11/5/01): Bush blocks release of Reagan White House papers

Rumsfeld-Saddam Handshake, Buddies Bush + Reagan, Reagan with Caspar Weinberger, George Shultz, Ed Meese, and Don Regan discussing the President's remarks on the Iran-Contra affair

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0312f.asp

by Jacob G. Hornberger, December 15, 2003

In his official statement celebrating the capture of Saddam Hussein, President Bush announced that “the former dictator of Iraq will face the justice he denied to millions.” Notably lacking from the president’s statement, however, was whether the U.S. government would agree to relinquish control over Saddam’s trial to the Iraqi government or to an international tribunal consisting of independent judges.

Why wouldn’t U.S. officials readily agree to relinquish jurisdiction over Saddam’s trial? Because of their need to closely guard the secrets that Saddam Hussein has in his possession — secrets that would cause no small amount of embarrassment to the U.S. government, including former president Ronald Reagan, former vice-president and former president George H.W. Bush (the president’s father), and Donald Rumsfeld, the president’s secretary of defense.

One of those secrets is the extent of the relationship that existed between the Reagan and Bush I administrations and Saddam Hussein, the details of which have never been fully disclosed by U.S. officials. There is, of course, the famous photograph on the Internet in which Rumsfeld and Saddam are shaking hands and making conversation in Baghdad in 1983. How did that meeting get set up? Who was involved in the decision-making process? What was discussed? What agreements were entered into?

Saddam’s testimony at trial could provide some of the answers. And that prospect — of Saddam Hussein testifying freely, openly, and publicly about his relationship with Ronald Reagan, President Bush I, and Donald Rumsfeld — would undoubtedly strike terror into the hearts and minds of many U.S. officials.

Advertisement

Guardian: Letters of the week

Guardian - Thursday December 18, 2003

Well, now that they've caught him, what are they going to charge him with? They can't charge him with having weapons of mass destruction, as none have been found; nor can they charge him with involvement in 9/11 or having links with Osama bin Laden, because ... the CIA has said there is no evidence. And they certainly wouldn't dare charge him with gassing the Kurds because they supplied him with the gas and conveniently turned a blind eye.

What a dilemma for the US - perhaps he might conveniently die, or they can just lock him up in Guantanamo Bay and hope the world forgets him.
Kel Dummett
Australian, December 16

<  9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable | Halliburton accused of stonewalling  >