[eklipse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324021.stm

Saddam Hussein's eldest daughter Raghad has called for an international trial for her father.

Raghad Saddam Hussein told Al-Arabiya TV he should not be tried by the Iraqi Governing Council "which was put in place by occupiers".

Speaking from Jordan, Raghad said she could not bear to see the pictures of her father put out by the US administration in Iraq.

She said her father must have been drugged before his capture.

"Everyone who knew him closely knows that he who was shown on television screens was a drugged Saddam Hussein," she told the TV.

"But a lion is still a lion, even when it is shackled," she added, saying how proud she was of her father.

She said that she and her sisters Rana and Hala would appoint a lawyer to defend the former president.

I think it's quite possible that Saddam was drugged before being captured, however, it could also be that the 'Saddam loyalists' don't want to accept that their man was ultimately a coward and a failure.

What do you think? How much of the 'Saddam's capture' story should we believe? - or, perhaps more to the point, does it matter?

[boots]

Originally posted by eklipse:
or, perhaps more to the point, does it matter?

I don't think it matters. Drugged or not, his capture was of critical importance. For US politics as well as for Iraqi mind-set.

[lil'babykitten]

I have to admit I was and still am rather sceptical toward the story of his capture. I would never have imagined that Saddam, of all people, would simply give up and then allow himself to be humiliated by US soldiers in front of the world.

I wouldn't totally throw out the argument that he might have been drugged. He certainly looked very disorientated.

Now his daughter comes out and says the same. And who would know Saddam better than his own daughter?

[thunderous_funker]

I keep wondering why the word "coward" keeps cropping up. Seems to me killing yourself is the cowards way out. You don't think Saddam knows he's likely to be tortured? At the very least, he'll be subjected to rigorous interogation that stops just short of being torture. Not to mention being paraded around by his enemies.

Why didn't he resist? Maybe because he thought he could do more damage to his enemies alive. Maybe he thinks he'll be a matyr to his supporters. Maybe he thinks he'll get a stage to state his case against the West. Maybe he believes he can live to fight another day, another way.

No. He's a brutal and ruthless man. He's a man guilty of terrible terrible crimes. But nothing about him strikes me as cowardly. I don't think a coward could possibly survived Saddam's life before the war let alone his life after the war.

And more likely than drugs is the cummulative effects of his life on the lamb these past months. That's one tough old bastard. He just looked exhausted to me.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I keep wondering why the word "coward" keeps cropping up. Seems to me killing yourself is the cowards way out. You don't think Saddam knows he's likely to be tortured? At the very least, he'll be subjected to rigorous interogation that stops just short of being torture. Not to mention being paraded around by his enemies.

I think it comes from a sense of disappointment at his capture felt by his supporters - they may be trying to come to terms with the new situation and, in the process, are attempting to distance themselves from him.

I generally agree with your analysis, suicide offers nothing but a quick exit (and Saddam has had no lack of quick exits over the years) - by giving himself up, he lives to fight another day - whether it be in an interrogation room or a court room.

[macvillage.net]

Well, the US has developed Gas to "relax" individuals, designed for use in a hostage situation. Problem with the gas, was it was somewhat "high risk". A bit to high for actual use in a hostage situation (think Russia a year ago).

So it's entirely likely they knew where he was, and just pumped it in.

IMHO it would be better for Iraq to produce a body. One less distraction for the Iraqi governing council/international community. It's going to take a year's worth of time to deal with him. That's one year more before we are at any given point in rebuilding.

The decapitation attack would have been neat, because Bush would have been credited with "avoiding a war". A real feat, and put him in the history books.

Him alive, means a ton to Bush, and to the military, as a way to purk up the soldier's self confidence.

THAT is why he was brought in alive.

Bin Laden is the same thing. Would be much better for everyone if it's a body. But a live person has political value.

IMHO a Bin Laden body would be great.

Bin Laden alive would be terrible. Years of political effort wasted on the bastard. That's effort that could go into terrorism protection... just used bicker over his fate. Waste of resources.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
What do you think? How much of the 'Saddam's capture' story should we believe? - or, perhaps more to the point, does it matter?

I don't think it matters.

This is war, and whether or not others want to admit it, much of it is being fought through the media. If video of a cowardly, disheveled, unkept, disoriented Saddam is what our commanders required, then so be it.

Somehow Saddam was captured and will face trial. To the Iraqi people, this is quite important. And regarding their peace and security, these images of Saddam offers an excellent opportunity to discourage insurgents.

i think the capture happened much like is being reported, though. Maybe they threw some gas cannister down the hole to 'disable' him from fighting - I don't know. What I do know is that the information inside his head is valuable.

As for Saddam's daughter, I expect that she is quite the obedient child. Any leanings towards independent thought she may have had were likely squashed forever when Daddy Saddam beheaded her husband.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
IMHO it would be better for Iraq to produce a body. One less distraction for the Iraqi governing council/international community. It's going to take a year's worth of time to deal with him. That's one year more before we are at any given point in rebuilding.

The decapitation attack would have been neat, because Bush would have been credited with "avoiding a war". A real feat, and put him in the history books.

Him alive, means a ton to Bush, and to the military, as a way to purk up the soldier's self confidence.

THAT is why he was brought in alive.

Uhh, and capturing him alive also means a lot to Iraqi's too -- more than a body or a pile of goo scraped out of a bombed bunker would. Many Iraqi's were upset after Uday and Qusay were killed; there's a substantial psychological benefit in capturing and trying your former tyrants, and the Iraqi's want to claim that right.

.

And the claims that he was drugged strike me as a little bit silly. Go spend a few days (or months?) living in a coffin-sized hole in the ground and see how lucid you are.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Uhh, and capturing him alive also means a lot to Iraqi's too -- more than a body or a pile of goo scraped out of a bombed bunker would. Many Iraqi's were upset after Uday and Qusay were killed; there's a substantial psychological benefit in capturing and trying your former tyrants, and the Iraqi's want to claim that right.

.

And the claims that he was drugged strike me as a little bit silly. Go spend a few days (or months?) living in a coffin-sized hole in the ground and see how lucid you are.

But there was no media circus. Imediate proof of who they were, and that's it.

Now we are going to have a good year of debating what's going to be done. Then another year of how to do it (new government, needs to decide how to conduct such a thing).

That's 2 years right there, before the trial. And look at Milosevic, and how long a trial can go.

+1 minimum (most likely more).

All that time, money and effort.

And nothing comes out of that, but tearing Iraq appart a bit more. As well as the international community.

Iraq doesn't need to be bickering over things any more than it already does. This unfortunately causes people there to take sides and polarize. And with a newly forming government, the last thing that's needed is excessive polarization.