Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by vonork, Dec 14, 2003.
International Criminal Court. Its what they were created for.
Letting the ICC have Hussein would be a disaster.
Just see how that SOB Melosevic is playing his little circus games there.
Everyone deserves a fair trial. He'll be found guility no matter what, so why not give him a fair trial? We would really be hurting ourselves to not give him a fair trial, as it would subvert the entire concept of democracy.
It would be cool if Saddam decided to handle his own defence and acted like a crazy homeless guy throughout the whole trial
Let the people of Iraq give him a fair trial, then run him through a delicatessan's meat slicer.
The vast majority of war crimminals are tried in national courts, not international ones. Each nation against which (or their citzens) he has commited warcrimes or crimes against humanity have jurisdiction.
At least, Milosevic is in jail and not under coconuts as a refugee in Barbados.
I personally voted for a trial made by the Iraqis in Baghdad and then confirmed by the ICC.
What benifit do they get by holding the trial?
Saddam has the right to fair trial, not matter what anyone says. Its like if we would have captured Hitler alive, he would be found guility either way, so why not do it in a matter that follows the democratic notion? Letting the Iraqs try Saddam makes us lower then he is, because not only are we playing his own tactics, we would be being hypocrites about it. Im glad the US military has not made a final decesion about the trial venue yet.
You mean exactly like Slobo is doing, but with less sartorial elegance?
When did the ICC become so important? They never did a thing to solve the problems, they just gobble up everything afterwards.
Dont send him to the Hague for Gods sake, the trial would drag on for about 20 years and he'd end up under permanent house arrest with a jacuzzi and cable.
Erm, what? Letting the Iraqis try their own former leader for crimes against them would make us lower than he is? Did the missing WMD end up in your local drinking water or something Archer?
By its own charter, the ICC is only for situations where there is no other useful forum willing to try a case. There are plenty of courts, now and soon some more, willing to try Saddam. Iraq jusridictions have to most crimes to go over, then Iran and Kuwati ones, after that various coallition mebers from both gulf wars. Each can have their crack at him in turn, for the respective crimes over which they have jusidiction. Thats is the real war of law on warcrimes.
They give reasonable trials to war criminals. The US just downplays that since they dont want to have officials tried in the case if we were to commit war crimes.
It is unreasonable to resort to personal attacks.
If we want the Iraqis to try to him, try not skip the trial phase and go straight to the execution. It would save us alot of time. You dont think he has the right to a fair trial?
It would be the same as the US recognizing the ICC. US recognition and cooperation is something that the ICC lacks, and that makes it all the less legitimate.
Allowing Saddam to be tried in Iraq would be a huge propaganda victory for the Bush administration and the occupation in general. It give the appearence of a return of Iraqi sovereignty, or at least a devolution of power.
They arent made to solve the problems. They are designed simply to be a court, not the full justice system.
I voted as Marla did.
He should get a thorough trial for no other reason than posterity. We owe it to the historical record to lay out all of his crimes in excrutiating detail. Fair trial? Fair schmair, the guys going to be executed as soon as possible. I give him at most 3 years before he's put in front of a firing squad.
Our soldiers spend sweat and blood to capture this man, and then people want him turned over to a bunch of wishy-washy double-crossing back-stabbing UN weasel bureaucrats?
Separate names with a comma.