Do you all belive it is going to be a totaly pubilc trial or perhaps closed from time to time becouse of "nation security" issues. Considering the defence Saddam could use regarding the years before 1990 when a lot of wester nations suported him.
Saddam on trial - when, were and for what?
- Thread starter vonork
- Start date
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
The Hague is not just somewhere in the Netherlands. It is the residence of Stapel
!Anyway: The ICC does, of course, not use Dutch laws.
I hardly know the ICC laws. But as much as I think that the trial should be in Iraq, I also think the ICC laws could be used for it! That would mean no death penalty. I do not oppose the death penalty, but I think it isn't that easy to use any other trial system than the ICC system, soft or not!
Iraq hardly has a legal system, so I don't see that as an option.
I think using the American system might give the wrong signal and might have the wrong effect. Apart from that, I do not have a clue on the possibilty within the American legal system to prosecute non Americans for crimes they committed outside American territory.
So, most people agree on the location: Iraq.
What system? I think Iraqi or American system is no good option, thus the ICC rules can be used. There is another option: Make a new system, just like in Nuernberg in 45/46. The disadvantage of this is that it will always be doubtful. Making laws after the crime is committed is called victor's justice. It is never fair I think!
Some of the Germans convicted after WWII, were re-prosecuted and even set free in 1955, by German courts. (Raeder comes to mind) .
The last issue is by whom. In general I think that Iraqi judges should be able to do a fair job with any legal system used!
A bit of a bump, but we seam to spawn threads like no tomorrow.
And I find that this subject could survive a few more posts.
The question we most have post about is were he would be trailed. The thing I would like to get opinions about is more of how the trail would be done. Regarding the following
Will it be public, and if so how public regarding a lot of information could be classified as of "national security".
Will Saddam be able to call state leaders to testify, The Iran - Iraq war comes to mind & the relations with other nations and who sold what to him. Any lawyer with some brain would want to call Rumdsfelt considering he was an envoy to Iraq in the early 1980.
Is the trail going to be allowed to go on, or a "he's guilty, kill him".
And will it ever be a trail or a "ops he died [old age]" immediately spawning conspiracy theories of "they did not dear him to talk".
And I find that this subject could survive a few more posts.
The question we most have post about is were he would be trailed. The thing I would like to get opinions about is more of how the trail would be done. Regarding the following
Will it be public, and if so how public regarding a lot of information could be classified as of "national security".
Will Saddam be able to call state leaders to testify, The Iran - Iraq war comes to mind & the relations with other nations and who sold what to him. Any lawyer with some brain would want to call Rumdsfelt considering he was an envoy to Iraq in the early 1980.
Is the trail going to be allowed to go on, or a "he's guilty, kill him".
And will it ever be a trail or a "ops he died [old age]" immediately spawning conspiracy theories of "they did not dear him to talk".
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
There will be a trial, and like Nuremburg, it will be designed so that there can be no disruption of proceedings with grandstanding or inappropriate conduct. This includes calling of outrageous witnesses and other such time wasting; the Iranians may be given him once the Iraqis are finished their judgement of him, but that will be a rather boring trial...
Flak
vBülletin Förum
Well, I must admit, I'm quite surprised that nobody has even really bothered to analyze some of their own words here. Frankly, if I ever say that someone is obviously guilty, I think I atleast do a quick review somewhere in my head to make sure that laws have been broken and that a prosecution can actually move forward. There are a lot of posters here saying things like 'He's obviously guilty...death' and apparently not actually considering what he would be guilty of. I am going to actually toss out some suggestions that I hope sound reasonable. I'm not backing anything up with research or links just yet. I'm just going on instinct here right now.
1. Crimes Against Humanity
Well, I believe there is ample hard evidence, witness accounts, and circumstantial evidence to put forward and convict with a fair trial. Who should put on such a trial? Obviously this is a simple matter of jurisdiction. I believe any Crimes Against Humanity charges are dealt with by an international court (the Hague). I also believe that specific laws are spelled out in ratified internationally public documents.
Breaking this down a bit more: Does the U.S. have any federal statutes for Crimes Against Humanity for citizens of foreign counties in their own countries? If we do, this seems a serious stretch of our laws, but nonetheless this would then also give us the power under some sort of existing law to also put on a trial. Does any other country have such laws? I don't know. Maybe someone here can research that out.
2. Crimes Against Iraqi Citizens
Again, there would seem plenty of hard evidence, eyewitness accounts, and circumstantial evidence for any Iraqi judicial system to convict under a variety of probably existing laws. And there would surely be some overlap with the Crimes Against Humanity as well. Whether or not such a trial can occur under current circumstances is not really so important. All that's important is if such a trial could ever be put on successfully at all. This is certainly the case here.
3. War Crimes
This is where things get a bit troublesome and rather complex. Iraq has been involved in a few obvious conflicts. Iraq-Iran, Gulf Wars I and II. War crimes are obviously in the context of International law (indeed by definition, this must be the case). So there is no question of jurisdiction here. The questions are: What laws exist? Are these laws ratified? And most importantly, did Iraq, specifically Saddam Hussein, ever break any of these laws? I broke my own little rule here and found very quickly the United Nations link to internationally agreed upon War Crimes. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/intlinst.htm#wcrimes. I only thumbed through it briefly. You guys can go into the details if you see fit, or maybe I will as this discussion progresses.
ONE NOTE: It is not a War Crime to commit acts that break any international treaties. Some here may be of the opinion that using WMDs in the Iraq/Iran war was a 'War Crime'. A treaty is a contract, an agreement among nations. This has already been hashed out here and beaten nearly to death on this board. If the search function were available, this would be quick to verify. Nevertheless, I will restate what is known. Neither the U.S. nor Iraq are signatories on any current specific agreements banning the use of WMDs (and a few other notorious weapons) in any conflict or in peacetime. Even if either of us were, if we decided to use them, this only violates that treaty. It doesn't break any laws. I leave it to the posters here verify these facts for themselves.
One more caveat, if the aim of a nation, using any weapon, is the attempt to commit a war crime, genocide for example, then the fact that a WMD was used would likely be considered strong corroborating factor in any later prosecution, particularly since most countries of the world, excluding the U.S. and a few others, have specifically agreed by treaty against the use of such weapons.
4. Crimes against the United States
I'm not aware of any laws that Saddam Hussein has broken here in the U.S. or with U.S. based interests. However that is just do lack of research on my part. This isn't a matter of a simple search. I will put forth my own suggestion that perhaps certain private companies have been misled into false investments, particularly in the oil and weapons industries. Some of this is probably already out. With some investigation, probably a lot more will come out. Perhaps even our own federal government has been misled in similar fashion. It's obvious Hussein was hoarding large amounts of wealth, much in the form of American currency. That money came from somewhere. I'm sure this would all come out in any trial.
1. Crimes Against Humanity
Well, I believe there is ample hard evidence, witness accounts, and circumstantial evidence to put forward and convict with a fair trial. Who should put on such a trial? Obviously this is a simple matter of jurisdiction. I believe any Crimes Against Humanity charges are dealt with by an international court (the Hague). I also believe that specific laws are spelled out in ratified internationally public documents.
Breaking this down a bit more: Does the U.S. have any federal statutes for Crimes Against Humanity for citizens of foreign counties in their own countries? If we do, this seems a serious stretch of our laws, but nonetheless this would then also give us the power under some sort of existing law to also put on a trial. Does any other country have such laws? I don't know. Maybe someone here can research that out.
2. Crimes Against Iraqi Citizens
Again, there would seem plenty of hard evidence, eyewitness accounts, and circumstantial evidence for any Iraqi judicial system to convict under a variety of probably existing laws. And there would surely be some overlap with the Crimes Against Humanity as well. Whether or not such a trial can occur under current circumstances is not really so important. All that's important is if such a trial could ever be put on successfully at all. This is certainly the case here.
3. War Crimes
This is where things get a bit troublesome and rather complex. Iraq has been involved in a few obvious conflicts. Iraq-Iran, Gulf Wars I and II. War crimes are obviously in the context of International law (indeed by definition, this must be the case). So there is no question of jurisdiction here. The questions are: What laws exist? Are these laws ratified? And most importantly, did Iraq, specifically Saddam Hussein, ever break any of these laws? I broke my own little rule here and found very quickly the United Nations link to internationally agreed upon War Crimes. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/intlinst.htm#wcrimes. I only thumbed through it briefly. You guys can go into the details if you see fit, or maybe I will as this discussion progresses.
ONE NOTE: It is not a War Crime to commit acts that break any international treaties. Some here may be of the opinion that using WMDs in the Iraq/Iran war was a 'War Crime'. A treaty is a contract, an agreement among nations. This has already been hashed out here and beaten nearly to death on this board. If the search function were available, this would be quick to verify. Nevertheless, I will restate what is known. Neither the U.S. nor Iraq are signatories on any current specific agreements banning the use of WMDs (and a few other notorious weapons) in any conflict or in peacetime. Even if either of us were, if we decided to use them, this only violates that treaty. It doesn't break any laws. I leave it to the posters here verify these facts for themselves.
One more caveat, if the aim of a nation, using any weapon, is the attempt to commit a war crime, genocide for example, then the fact that a WMD was used would likely be considered strong corroborating factor in any later prosecution, particularly since most countries of the world, excluding the U.S. and a few others, have specifically agreed by treaty against the use of such weapons.
4. Crimes against the United States
I'm not aware of any laws that Saddam Hussein has broken here in the U.S. or with U.S. based interests. However that is just do lack of research on my part. This isn't a matter of a simple search. I will put forth my own suggestion that perhaps certain private companies have been misled into false investments, particularly in the oil and weapons industries. Some of this is probably already out. With some investigation, probably a lot more will come out. Perhaps even our own federal government has been misled in similar fashion. It's obvious Hussein was hoarding large amounts of wealth, much in the form of American currency. That money came from somewhere. I'm sure this would all come out in any trial.
Flak
vBülletin Förum
Looks like I had another post that sadly killed what might have been a good thread...
I'm still here.
A good post, and I can agree with your thoughts. But to add some.
The problem with (1) is that as I can see it have to be handled by some sort of International court or a National court with International laws. However, most of Saddams Actions has been against his own citizens & most of them have been of the sort that is common among dictators, murder on political opponents, mass executions of people of different thoughts and more. That is more of a crime against its citizens (2). If this would be brought to an international court it would produce a dangerous (well sort of) regarding how the international community have to act against a lot of regimes. Because how can you first help to judge Saddam and then cooperate with someone that does exactly the same?
Regarding (3) that's a harder part, because using gas is not per say a war crime, an International court could of course say it is, but afaik Iraq mostly used it against Iranian soldiers. The gassing of the Kurds could on the other hand be a war crime & a crime against humanity.
I say it could be possible to commit Saddam on crimes against Iraq & perhaps against humanity.
The problem is to prove that Saddam knew, as his defence would prob be that he did not know, that he did not order any of this. Now this might seam ridiculous, of course he knew you say, but if you dont have any testimony from close aides or paper or other media trails then it cant be proven. I however doubt this will be considered a problem, but it could be if they dont get any aides to testify against him.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I'd say just give him to the mobs of angry people after all "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
jack merchant
Internationalist
Not quite true; the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction only covers those crimes against humanity committed after its inception, i.e. July 1st 2003, and then only those that for whatever reason cannot or will not be prosecuted in the country where they were committed (Iraq would seem like an obvious example seeing as there is currently no constitution or legal system in place there, but there's nothing to stop the Iraqi government from setting up a court and prosecuting Saddam themselves under current international laws, or even temporary domestic ones).
Belgium used to, until it scrapped the so-called 'genocide law' under intense American pressure. Even now, I think the US extradites people who have been discovered to have committed crimes against humanity during WWII to the countries where they came from to stand trial and doesn't prosecute them themselves.
Of course, not being an expert it's quite possible someone can prove me wrong.
That would depend on the Iraqi laws in place while those crimes were being committed. It's possible Iraqi did have laws in place against torture & gassing of civilians, but that these were obviously never enforced. The case for international law to be valid here would become stronger if that wasn't the case.
War crimes tend to get prosecuted eiither by the country where they were committed or by the country by whose nationals they were committed (think William Calley). If for whatever reason that doesn't turn out to be possible (Rwanda, or the unentanglable conglomeration of nationalities and statelets in the former Yugoslavia), a UN tribunal could be set up (the ICC wouldn't do as once again, it can only prosecute crimes committed after July 1st 2003). And yes, that's slow, but anyone who's ever had a case go through several appeals knows how slow the wheels of justice grind - and we're talking very complicated stuff here.
Actually, Iraq (like Iran) is a signatory since 1931 of the 1st Geneva Protocol, which specifically forbids the use of chemical weapons in war. So the use of poison gas against Iranian troops during the first Gulf War is most definitely a war crime.
I'm tempted to say Saddam's main crime against the US was to take April Glasspie at her word, but of course there are also the hostages taken before GW I (the American version, not the Iranian one
) and likely other acts. Saddam's wealth of course mainly came from robbing the Iraqi people, and I don't know whether that is technically a crime in the US.Anyway, this is way too complicated stuff for me to give an opinion on what is best; however, I do tend to think that a long and exhaustive trial to catalogue all of Saddam's crimes would do more justice to the victims, and would do more to expose the workings of the Baath party and Saddam's cronies than a lynching bee would.
Flak
vBülletin Förum
They are a signatory under the Geneva Convention with the following exceptions:
Exception 'a' would seem to mean that if they are at war with somebody or relations have otherwise taken a nasty turn, then they aren't bound to this protocol. But that is an interpretation. It could also mean that they would only respect this with other signatories. This has actually already been thoroughly discussed on this board, however that can't be proven.
Could you explain what you mean here. What hostages are you refferring to?Originally posted by jack merchant
, but of course there are also the hostages taken before GW I (the American version, not the Iranian one
This would go under crimes against Iraqi civilians.
I have heard some on this thread mention that he should be tried for crimes agains the U.S. The only crimes I can quess would be possible to prosecute, from what we know now, are embezzlement schemes of American companies and perhaps the government. I've never heard of any actual evidence, unless one counts the loads of American Currency he had stashed about. And I've never actually heard anyone important actually guess as to where that money might have come from. How does a dictator on the other side of the world get his hands on tens of millions dollars in hard U.S. currency? Well..., there's one obvious source: someone in America.
Flak
vBülletin Förum
Double
jack merchant
Internationalist
The way I understood it, they signed it only under the understanding that if someone used chemical weapons against them, they would be allowed to use them too. Given that there's no proof that I know of that Iran used CW, this would still leave them in violation of the treaty. Iran signed the treaty without preconditions.
I mean the ones who were taken before GW I and released before it started (like those unfortunates who were paraded before the TV cameras). Including those in the category of crimes against US nationals is just a guess on my part though - I'm not aware of any other crimes really, and since I've seen multiple people in these forums argue that those French, German and Russian companies who are owed money by Iraq are sh*t out of luck as regards getting their money back since they knew who they were getting in bed with, I took the liberty of applying the same logic to those American businesses who might feel cheated by the Iraqi government under Saddam
.The Chosen One
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 170
The Trial should be held by the Iraqi's and if there is to be anyone 'heading this trial' it should be either Americans/British or Iraqi's. But the jurory must be Iraqi's. The Hague is useless in this trial.
Flak
vBülletin Förum
Well, a few questions here:
1. What do you mean the 'trial should be held by Iraqi's'? Do you mean Iraqi's should provide the judge, and lawyers for both sides, as well as any and all other officers of the court (bailiffs, etc...)?
2. What do you mean by the Americans 'heading this trial'? Do you mean we should provide the judge, lawyers and other officers of the court? If we do that, then what charges do we bring against Hussein? Crimes against Americans? What crimes would those be? If you mean other charges, what jurisdiction does the U.S. have?
3. Why do you say the Hague is useless? If that's your opinion, ok. But I am curious if there is some event, situation, or trial in particular that makes you feel that they couldn't handle this case.
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
I think the Iraqi people should judge Saddam, but Bush wants to do it himself most likely. Probably wants to execute him on the spot without a trial.
JonathanValjean
Porschephile
I voted for the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
jack merchant
Internationalist
Which is a commendable position, except like I pointed out, the ICC can only try cases related to crimes committted after July 1, 2002 (I said 2003 earlier; that was a mistake). Any international trial of Saddam and his cronies would need a Security Council resolution (like the Rwanda and Yugoslavia Tribunals - set up by the SC, they were effectively approved by the USA, too !) to either set up a special court or charge the ICC with prosecuting him.
Some background information which might be useful.....
Some background information which might be useful.....
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.
Originally posted by philippe
Let him be trialed in China with their lawsystem
Okay, just to post some facts....I'm thinking philippe is the closest here
According to Amnesty International It is China that has the highest "execution rate".
"In 2002, 81 percent of all known executions took place in China, Iran and the USA.
In China, limited and incomplete records available to Amnesty International indicated that at least 1,060 people were executed, although the true number was believed to be much higher. At least 113 executions were carried out in Iran. Seventy-one people were executed in the USA."
I guess the US isn't quite as bad as most think
Why should it necessarily be 'bad' anyway? State execution within an established legal framework is not evil and that comment from dvandyke about it meaning that a country doesnt have any respect for human rights was frankly naive.
Similar threads
- Poll
