But of Saddam Hussein, his sons, and his deputy, Tariq Aziz, there is no trace. If any of them do turn up alive, however, the US and British authorities must know what to do with them.It would be technically correct, initially, to treat them as prisoners of war like any other. The notion that Saddam and henchmen might obtain immunity from prosecution, however, provoked an international outcry before the war, and would undoubtedly do so now. Indicting them for war crimes or crimes against humanity would be desirable, but poses problems of precedent, practice and definition.Perhaps the least acceptable solution is that mooted by some American officials, who have proposed transporting indicted individuals to the US for trial.

For the US, with or without its British allies, to act as prosecutor, judge and jury would leave the impression of “victor’s justice”. The verdicts would risk not being recognised further afield, or – crucially – in Iraq.A seemingly elegant solution would be to invoke the newly established International Criminal Court. This would be unacceptable to the US, however, which opposes the whole principle of the court. It also has the disadvantage that it cannot try people for crimes that go back before July 2002. This would take out of account the Halabja gassing and the invasion of Kuwait.An ad hoc international tribunal sited in a third country, along the lines of the court in The Hague that is trying former Yugoslav officials, may be the best option for the “most wanted”.

But Iraqis should also have a chance to judge their own, perhaps through regional tribunals or a central commission along the lines of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.The Iraqi justice system is as compromised as any other branch of its administration; the transition to government, though, must include the development of a judiciary deemed fair by Iraqis. This is where military occupation ends, and representative government begins.. *

There are exemptions in our laws for the military and the employment of women They are anomalous compared to general employment laws. They base their present attitudes and the exemptions on the definition of what is wanted from a fighting force. They don’t base it on equality.
The sight of the lone female among the lads still generates a picture. There’s also a depressing obsession that such a female might have sexy disruptive potential. The suggestion that tends to accompany this sort of story is that a woman is not a serious soldier.