What on earth is it that we should want from Saddam Hussein? The New York Times set are going on about an exemplary trial that will vindicate international tribunal procedures, abiding by "the complex legal issues posed by this trial" (to quote one editorial), which can be done only using "specialists in human rights and war crimes issues." Oh yes, and it would be hard to get participation by lawyers from enlightened states if the trial were to permit capital sentences.

The baloney here is truly offensive. Here is what we should want from Saddam, live:

  • As much information as we can usefully get from him concerning the whereabouts of subordinate criminals from his regime. As also, what accounts he can give us of the preparations he had in mind for a future arsenal of war weapons, and what he knows of stratagems for concealing those that he had.

  • We should insist on priorities in the matter of his trial that transcend Ethics 101 courses on proper procedures in the prosecution of criminals. We have three models here to inform us.

    (1) The Nuremberg trial (l945-'46) for major war criminals was singular because none such had ever been done; because the setup of it was political (a Soviet judge, whose country had engaged in every crime the Nazis were being tried on, participated and had certain veto powers); and because, among the defendants, there were those who could conscientiously plead not guilty. Indeed, three were exonerated, so that was a call for judicial discrimination.

    (2) The Eichmann model was, once again, sui generis. He had been scooped up from Argentina, raising international political and legal questions. He was unquestionably criminal, but the recounting of the Holocaust story over a period of months served the purpose of reminding the world of the pandemic nature of Nazi guilt. The Israelis had abolished capital sentences -- but, with a little nod at legal convention, reinstated it for the commendable purpose of giving the Israeli people a satisfaction not otherwise achievable.