[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 9804-9805]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     PROMPT TRIAL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss a 
matter which I have talked to executive officials about, and my 
colleagues in the Senate about, and that is to urge consideration for a 
prompt trial of Saddam Hussein.
  The judgment, I think, is correct to try Saddam Hussein in Iraq so 
the people of Iraq and the people of the world will have confidence in 
what happens at a trial. It has obviously been difficult to constitute 
a judicial tribunal to try Saddam Hussein. But now, as we are 
approaching June 30 and the prospect of the transfer of sovereignty--
and there is proceeding for an interim government and a constitution--I 
think the time has come to lay the groundwork for a trial of Saddam 
Hussein.
  I believe it would be very salutary to have on the public record the 
atrocities where Saddam has been charged: crimes against humanity; 
genocide; murder; torture; embezzlement; public corruption; conspiracy 
to murder Israelis by soliciting suicide bombers and paying their 
families once the suicide bombing was completed.
  There is no doubt the United States and the coalition of the 
willing--Great Britain and others who have supported the United 
States--have been subjected to a great deal of criticism in world 
public opinion, and especially in the Arab world. It is my thought that 
much of that criticism would be dissipated if there was presented in a 
public trial the evidence of Saddam Hussein's atrocities.
  We have had a great deal of speculation on the issue of weapons of 
mass destruction. Just yesterday, a casing was found which contained 
chemical substances, a question as to whether that weapon of mass 
destruction was in Saddam's hands immediately before the war began.
  We know with certainty that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass 
destruction in December of 1998 before he kicked out the United 
Nations. This may have been an old shell or it may have been a recent 
shell. The issue of weapons of mass destruction is still subject to 
speculation. Yet evidence may be established that Saddam did, in fact, 
have weapons of mass destruction when the United States and Great 
Britain and the coalition of the willing moved against Saddam Hussein. 
Once the evidence is submitted of the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, I 
believe the issue of weapons of mass destruction, while still 
important, will recede into the background.
  We have had the issue raised, and properly so, of the abusive 
treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Those investigations have to be pursued 
and the guilty have to be punished. We have seen the brutal 
assassination, murder and beheading of Nicholas Berg, and we have seen 
the Secretary of State Colin Powell roundly criticize the Arab world 
for not condemning that brutal assassination.
  I have had an opportunity recently to view a video which purports to 
be atrocities by Saddam Hussein on film, the ghastly, ghoulish 
beheading of a man purportedly in Saddam's custody. I say 
``purportedly'' because I haven't seen the authentication of the tape 
as acts committed by Saddam's henchmen or Saddam's subordinates. But a 
trial would bring out the evidence as to what Saddam did on genocide. A 
trial would bring out the specifics of the use of weapons of mass 
destruction against the Kurds, Saddam's own people. A trial would bring 
out the use by Saddam Hussein of chemical weapons against Iran in the 
Iran-Iraq war. I had occasion to talk to a man, an Iranian who 
recounted an incident where he was the victim of a chemical attack by 
Iraqi forces under the control of Saddam Hussein. A trial of Saddam 
Hussein would disclose the specifics on the torture he committed and 
the embezzlement and secreting of vast wealth which belonged to Iraq, 
deposited in foreign accounts, great sums of cash which were found by 
U.S. forces when Iraq was invaded.
  It would be my hope that plans would be made now for the prosecution 
of Saddam. A prosecution will take some time to prepare. We couldn't 
proceed to have a trial realistically before June 30. But if we set in 
motion now the works to establish a court, security would be a matter 
of considerable concern. Judges have to be designated. Prosecutors have 
to be designated. There would be the opportunity for defense counsel. 
There has been some speculation as to some counsel already having been 
designated or in the process of being designated. But this would be 
something that ought to be accomplished at a very early date.
  I have had some experience in the criminal process. From the 
experience I have had, it would not be all that complicated, once you 
have the provisional government established, a court, give it criminal 
jurisdiction, which it could be granted under the appropriate Iraqi 
procedures, and the designation of the trial judge or the designation 
of prosecutors, to move on with the trial.
  I think once the details of Saddam's brutality are put on the public 
record, it would have a very profound effect on world public opinion, 
including Arab public opinion. I think it would put in an 
understandable light the action by the United States in toppling Saddam 
Hussein in the interest of stability in the Mideast and in the interest 
of bringing a violent perpetrator to justice. There is no doubt that it 
is very painful to see the casualties and fatalities of our service men 
and women in Iraq, the brutal assassination yesterday of the Iraqi 
leader, but I submit that if we are able to succeed with establishing a 
democracy in Iraq, it will be a historic achievement.
  It will put great pressure on Iran, where there is an interest in 
developing nuclear weapons, which is a separate subject that we have to 
move against on the international front with the United Nations. 
Hopefully when the G-8 meets in the near future, they will

[[Page 9805]]

take action to impose international safeguards, standards, and 
inspections to be sure Iran does not develop nuclear weapons. It will 
put a lot of pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop the tyranny on the Saudis 
and the terrible degradation of Arab women throughout the entire 
region, lend security to the Mideast. It would be very helpful to 
security for Israel, and that is a lofty goal worth our very resolute 
efforts.
  But in the interim, I would like to see consideration started and a 
debate progress and thought given to the trial of Saddam Hussein, which 
would be very helpful to reinforce the position of the United States 
and influence world public opinion, especially the Arab world, of the 
justification for U.S. military action to bring down Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to take a minute to compliment the Senator. 
Actually, a lot is going on with reference to Iraq, but it seems that 
somehow or another, once Saddam was captured--whatever is happening to 
him, I hope it is humane, and we have every reason to think that it 
is--it seemed to pale in the background. It kind of went away--I am 
sure not in your mind, I am sure not in many minds, but in a sense 
because other things have happened that are somewhat gruesome. The 
enormity of Saddam Hussein's actions versus those kinds of events is 
actually inconceivable.
  We talk about a prison. We talk about, even from their standpoint, 
Berg being decapitated. We talk about those four people they drug down 
the road. But imagine what he did to his people in comparison. I think 
the Senator is right. To put in perspective the conduct in that part of 
the world and the difficulty in changing things and the difficulty in 
bringing people together, which we are trying to do, would begin to put 
itself together. If we had him there with adequate prosecutors and 
evidence and people, I would assume some witnesses--you would have a 
lot of pictures--as to what he did, it would be a tremendous 
improvement in balancing what is going on. I commend the Senator.
  I wish we had a way--this body--of expediting that.
  But we don't. I think what you are doing helps. I commend you for it. 
I don't think a resolution here urging it would have much effect. It 
might have the reverse effect. I don't know. I thought maybe we would 
have one saying what we think. But in a sense they want to do their 
thing, and I think that is correct.
  I do believe, while we turn their government over to them, turn over 
the governance, we ought not forget the issue of a judiciary and a 
criminal jurisdictional court for that purpose.
  That is big enough to be considered even in the transfer of 
governance because it has to happen. We do not want to do it, but we 
want it done right.
  I understand what the Senator from Pennsylvania is saying. They can 
do it right. Actually, we ought to be able, in the transfer, to in some 
way indicate the gravity of the situation and how we feel about it.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for 
his support and comments. I have considered and still am considering 
the possibility of a Senate resolution on this subject. We pass 
resolutions with some rapidity around here, and it may well be that 
most of the resolutions do not accomplish a whole lot. But it is time, 
in my judgment, that we spoke out on this issue.
  The Senator from New Mexico is exactly right. Saddam was captured in 
mid-December. Five months have passed, and it is time to proceed. Mr. 
President, 9/11 has occurred and thousands of Americans were killed in 
that brutal attack by flying hijacked planes into the World Trade 
Center, the Pentagon, and one probably was headed for the Capitol but 
went down in western Pennsylvania.
  While many of us are worried on a daily basis, the President receives 
a CIA briefing every morning, and there is great concern about homeland 
security. In the public mind, the threat recedes. Understandably, it is 
human nature to have a short attention span. But what is going on in 
Iraq today is enormously problemsome.
  The United States is taking it on the chin in world public opinion 
and especially in the Arab world. When you have the brutal 
assassination of Nicholas Berg--his head was cut off in public view--
and the Secretary of State has to remonstrate, criticize the Arab world 
for not condemning that act of brutality, and meanwhile we are 
subjected to all sorts of criticism--and the criticism on the 
mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is well placed, it is justified. But we 
are acting on it, and we acknowledge the problems, the President has 
and the Secretary of State has--people forget why we are there. It is 
very painful to have the casualties and fatalities, but we are dealing 
with large stakes in establishing a democracy there.
  If Saddam's defalcations and crimes were put on the public record, 
people would understand why we are there and how important it is to 
change. When the Iraqi resistance comes up and the Iraqi terrorists 
come up, let them understand that when there is a change in 
sovereignty, that they are acting against their own people, a duly 
constituted Iraq Government which would bring Saddam to trial. We 
cannot bring him to trial. Nobody would trust a trial by the United 
States, as good and fair as our system is, and as just as we are with 
procedural due process.
  We ought to let it be known that it is our recommendation that the 
Iraqis will have to make the final decision.
  I would like to start consideration, which is why I have taken a few 
minutes of our time today, not that there is any rush on the Senate 
floor. The Senator from New Mexico and I are the only ones here.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Domenici, for his support and comments. 
I yield the floor, Mr. President, and in the absence of any Senator 
seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senate is in a period for morning business, with Senators 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for 35 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________