Saddam on trial - when, were and for what?

[Kinniken]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Just see how that SOB Melosevic is playing his little circus games there.

He is exerting his right to a fair defense. It won't stop him from being found guilty and sentenced to a life in prison; it will just ensure that his trial is perceived as fair.
I hope that whatever trial Saddam gets has a comparable standards.

What I would prefer would be an ICC-organised trial with a mixture of international judges and local ones, something similar to the East Timor trials. Since the involvement of the ICC is extremely unlikely, a trial run by Iraqis is the best option. I would prefer it to be held in a few years though - Iraq simply does not have the legal infrastructure necessary to hold it now.

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
Such international organizations declined to aid the war. As with France or Germany, they should not be given any share of its benefits.

The ICC is a court... How could they have aided the war? By sending the judges in the front lines with their little hammers?

All in all, I hope that the trial lives up to the Nuremberg ones.

 

[Mr Black]

He should be sent all over the place.

Baghdad, The Hague, Tehran and Kuwait. Everyone should get a piece. Although he might not make it out of Tehran.

 

[Marla_Singer]

It would be the same as the US recognizing the ICC. US recognition and cooperating is something that the ICC lacks, and that makes it all the less legitimate.

Actually, Bill Clinton participated to the building of the ICC. He was behind it. Once George W. Bush came in power, he suddenly stopped all negociations and removed the USA from it. Most of newspapers were saying Bush was killing the ICC before its birth ! (Bush did that 2 months after Pennsylvannia Avenue became his new house).

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator


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. [/B]

The US only doesnt recoginize the ICC because they want everyone else in the world to follow international law except themselves.

Key phrase in that second paragraph is "Bush propaganda". We all know that Iraq isnt even close to ruling itself.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Actually, Bill Clinton participated to the building of the ICC. He was behind it. Once George W. Bush came in power, he suddenly stopped all negociations and removed the USA from it. Most of newspapers were saying Bush was killing the ICC before its birth ! (Bush did that 2 months after Pennsylvannia Avenue became his new house).

Notice I used the present tense in my statement, not the past.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by archer_007

Key phrase in that second paragraph is "Bush propaganda". We all know that Iraq isnt even close to ruling itself.

I agree. The downside to a trial in Iraq would be that it would only fuel the delusions of Iraqi self-government that some high-placed US officials are suffering from.

However, the only other possibility (trial by the United States), would be potentially harmful to US/Iraqi relations, which are strained as it is, to make an understatement.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
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.

For a trial to be truly thorough and recorded as such in history, it would have to be fair.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Kinniken


He is exerting his right to a fair defense. It won't stop him from being found guilty and sentenced to a life in prison; it will just ensure that his trial is perceived as fair.
I hope that whatever trial Saddam gets has a comparable standards.

What I would prefer would be an ICC-organised trial with a mixture of international judges and local ones, something similar to the East Timor trials. Since the involvement of the ICC is extremely unlikely, a trial run by Iraqis is the best option. I would prefer it to be held in a few years though - Iraq simply does not have the legal infrastructure necessary to hold it now.



The ICC is a court... How could they have aided the war? By sending the judges in the front lines with their little hammers?

All in all, I hope that the trial lives up to the Nuremberg ones.

Im glad at least one person agrees with me.

 

[Kentonio]

Originally posted by archer_007


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?

Personally I think its highly unreasonable to resort to rascist assertions that the Iraqi people are incapable of carrying out fair forms of justice myself, but hey we all have our little foibles.

 

[amadeus]

I'm curious - am I the only one here that isn't concerned about violating this man's "rights?"

Other than for PR purposes, this guy shouldn't get anything more than a trip to his own human shredder.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
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.

They'll grill him a little first.

He is more likely to be hanged; it is more of a 'criminal' execution than the 'military' firing squad. Certainly makes for better press and headlines.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Kentonio


Personally I think its highly unreasonable to resort to rascist assertions that the Iraqi people are incapable of carrying out fair forms of justice myself, but hey we all have our little foibles.

Racist? Seems like another personal attack to me, When did I make a racist point?

The Iraq people can't give him a fair trial because they are out for blood. I wouldn't trust anyone to do that to their freshly booted dictator

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Threads merged

 

[amadeus]

Why not let the Iraqis get their blood? Why does Saddam deserve anything better?

 

[GenMarshall]

Well, I knew that we would capture him some day or another . Hmm, I wonder why we did not killed him on sight .

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by archer_007
For a trial to be truly thorough and recorded as such in history, it would have to be fair.

If along the way to exposing his crimes for all future generations to see, he just so happens to get a free trial, I have no objections. The better the case made against him, the tougher it will be for future revisionists (like the current day holocaust deniers) to portray him as a victim of some kind of American/Zionist conspiracy. I dont recognise Saddam as having any human rights worth worrying about for their own sake. He gave up those rights when he decided to butcher his own people and anybody else he could get his hands on.

 

[BorgeoisBuffoon]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead

If along the way to exposing his crimes for all future generations to see, he just so happens to get a free trial, I have no objections. The better the case made against him, the tougher it will be for future revisionists (like the current day holocaust deniers) to portray him as a victim of some kind of American/Zionist conspiracy. I dont recognise Saddam as having any human rights worth worrying about for their own sake. He gave up those rights when he decided to butcher his own people and anybody else he could get his hands on.

Agreed. Entirely.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator


I agree. The downside to a trial in Iraq would be that it would only fuel the delusions of Iraqi self-government that some high-placed US officials are suffering from.

However, the only other possibility (trial by the United States), would be potentially harmful to US/Iraqi relations, which are strained as it is, to make an understatement.

Why can't we dont an international court process with a judge panel with say, 3 Americans, 3 Iraqis, and 3 people from other nations?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by archer_007

Why can't we dont an international court process with a judge panel with say, 3 Americans, 3 Iraqis, and 3 people from other nations?

I suppose we could, assuming the 3 other nations represented cooperated with the US before and during the war.

 

[Kentonio]

Originally posted by archer_007


Racist? Seems like another personal attack to me, When did I make a racist point?

The Iraq people can't give him a fair trial because they are out for blood. I wouldn't trust anyone to do that to their freshly booted dictator

Ah my apologies, you made it sound as if you simply didnt trust an arab state to dispense justice. Now I see that its simply the Iraqi people rather than the arabs as a whole who are apparently incapable of dispensing justice. Thanks for the clarification. Would you mind explaining however what gives the Hague or any other international body the right to hold court over an Iraqi internal matter without their consent?

The Iraqi people certainly are out for blood, its due to their having just emerged from several decades of severe oppression and cruelty. This is an unusual case whereby guilt and innocence are basically not even in question. He WILL be sentenced to death and the Iraqi people will feel like some small measure of justice has been carried out. If Britain ever falls under the sway of a comparable dictator then i hope the same thing will occur. The only reasonable objection to an Iraqi held trial is if you hold deep personal views against the death penalty. If this is the case for some people then in this instance I would have to tell them to mind their own business and let the Iraqis do what needs to be done, they are the ones who have suffered under this sicko not us, they are therefore the only ones who have any right to decide on his fate.