Archer 007
Rebirth
This were we disagree. Everyone has human rights, to be different would be to act like Saddam himself, and thats not a compromise i am willing to make. Its not like anyone takes those Holocause revisionists seriously anyway.
Saddam on trial - when, were and for what?
- Thread starter vonork
- Start date
This were we disagree. Everyone has human rights, to be different would be to act like Saddam himself, and thats not a compromise i am willing to make. Its not like anyone takes those Holocause revisionists seriously anyway.
Kinniken
Riding with William
I am not in favor of giving him a fair trial because I believe him to be worthy of having any rights, but because I want his trial to be remembered as fair. Plus, a proper jugement will have the advantage of making it quite clear exactly what he did, when and against whom, and who was implied.
Furthermore, I actually believe in the concept of "Justice", which only works if it is applied to everyone. Concept which is more important than Saddam's fate.
If the allied could organise a fair trial for Nazi leaders, why cannot the same be done for Saddam?
You mean except for the extremist neo-nazi movements who use these revisionists to provide a semi-legitimate vaneer of respectability to their sordid little organizations? Jesus, will anyone ever actually learn anything from history?!?
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
hardly racist. The Iraqi's, from their previous government, aren't set up for a proper trial.
Some guys in Washington force soldiers to spend sweat and blood to catch a guy and you think that it was the soldier's idea? Besides, just becasue someon is determined it doesn't mean they should have it their way.
But you can count on that the jurisdiction which has control of prisoner will decide which of all the competing competant forums will get first crack at a defendant, just like the John Muhamed case in the USA with the feds and mutilple states involved.
Archer 007
Rebirth
Exactly, the concept of justice is what is important. Personally, Saddam needed to be raped by a mountain goat.
Archer 007
Rebirth
Originally posted by Kentonio
You mean except for the extremist neo-nazi movements who use these revisionists to provide a semi-legitimate vaneer of respectability to their sordid little organizations? Jesus, will anyone ever actually learn anything from history?!?
And other then the fraction of a percent of the population they make up, everyone else sees them as idiots.
We already covered the rascist thing but thanks for playing.
Why exactly do you presume they are not set up for a proper trial? Does a trial really have to contain the common US nonsense with huge tribes of lawyers fighting for years over inconsequential points of detail and suchlike? Iraq is not Afghanistan, it is a modern civilised nation who unfortunately fell under the rule of a despot. I would say they are MORE than capable of carrying out a perfectly proper trial, and whats more they are about to do so.
Anyone belive Saddam would try a "you did not seam to care that I killed 1000 of civilians when it was to your gain" defence or perhaps a, "better let me of easy or I will show records that will prove how you traded with me when I killed 1000 of civilians"
Kinniken
Riding with William
No, but it has to investigate and prove (yes, even if everyone knows Saddam is guilty, proof is still needed) a rather massive list of crimes. Plus, if for Saddam personally his guiltiness is *ahem* rather obvious, don't forget that there is a whole regime to judge. And a lot of cases will not be clear-cut.
Iraq currently has no constitution, no legitimate authority and thus no criminal code with a democratic legitimacy behind it. Plus, most of Iraqi judges were involved to some extents in Saddam's regime, and thus need to be cleared before anything else can be done.
I would like Saddam to be kept in prison for a few years, and judged only when a legitimate Iraqi government can do so properly.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Lets be realistic here. Obviously, the U.S. will have some input in his prosecution. We wouldnt let the Iraqis handle it alone without our oversight. Theres too much riding on this for that. If theres one thing we have plenty of here in the U.S. is lawyers. They'll see to it that the proceedings are proper and can pass any legal sniff test.
Riesstiu IV
Deity
Let the Iraqi people decide. They are the ones who suffered Saddam's wraith first hand.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
I hate to sound pessimistic, but I highly doubt the Americans will allow a real trial of Saddam on his doings of the last 30 years. Why? Because an impartial committee will likely find a mountain of evidence connecting the Bush family and other neocons to Saddam's crimes in the 80's.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
I think the trial process should involve shaving off his moustache and putting him in a pink frilly dress, for starters. He will be tried by the Iraqis, and done so appropriately, without any conspiracy theories.
delsully
Prince
Originally posted by dvandyke
I think we should act better than that. I suppose the US kills more prisoners than any other country so I shouldn't expect them to respect human rights.
I suppose England is at least, a close second.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Sobieski, if you lend me $300 and I buy a gun and shoot 20 people with it, bringing up your loan during the trial wont grant me immunity from prosecution for murder. American corporate/Bush family/neo-con support is another trial entirely, with a different set of defendants.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
By conspiracy theories, you are not talking about the neocon involvement are you? How do you think they knew he had WMDs, the British and Americans had the receipts.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Especially because we're talking about Saddam the trial should be as fair and as neutral as possible.
I remember an old trial that has been too quickly done... it was the one of Louis XVI. Look how people are thinking about his trial now !! Here's the result of an excuse of trial...
To get back to Iraq, I should remind you the guys who caught him weren't iraqis but foreigners. What would you have thought about it if the french, austrians or anyone else went in New England in 1760, and have told : "It's obvious brits are suckers and you don't like them ! For your own good, I get them out of America ! But don't worry... we'll do some kind of trial to give an official reason why we've done so (and it has no link with the fact we have colonies just above from where you are...)"
That would suck ! Once again, we don't need an excuse of trial. We need to prove facts. That's the only way to legitimate the war and to make of that trial something that deserves to be respected... and not considered as oriented.
I remember an old trial that has been too quickly done... it was the one of Louis XVI. Look how people are thinking about his trial now !! Here's the result of an excuse of trial...
To get back to Iraq, I should remind you the guys who caught him weren't iraqis but foreigners. What would you have thought about it if the french, austrians or anyone else went in New England in 1760, and have told : "It's obvious brits are suckers and you don't like them ! For your own good, I get them out of America ! But don't worry... we'll do some kind of trial to give an official reason why we've done so (and it has no link with the fact we have colonies just above from where you are...)"
That would suck ! Once again, we don't need an excuse of trial. We need to prove facts. That's the only way to legitimate the war and to make of that trial something that deserves to be respected... and not considered as oriented.
Similar threads
- Poll
