Doesnt Saddam have to be impeached first?

[Tmy]

This whole Saddam trial thing is really facinating me. Especially since hes being tried under Iraqi law for crimes he did while he was in charge. Legally speaking, wouldnt Saddam have some legit defenses? When he comes out saying " Im President of Iraq." isnt he technically right? Shoudlnt he be impeached.

 

[Segnosaur]

When he comes out saying " Im President of Iraq." isnt he technically right? Shoudlnt he be impeached.

Does Iraq even have "impeachement" in its legal code? (I don't think Canada has it...)

Also, impeachig a president may not be needed; after all, when Bush Sr. lost the election to Clinton, did Bush need to be "impeached", or did other political processes take care of the removal of Bush and the installation of a new head of state?

 

[Tmy]

Yeah but he didnt lose an election. He was removed. THe weird thing is how theres a NEW Iraqi govt yet there having this trial based on old Iraqi law (i think). Its all kind of bizzar.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

This whole Saddam trial thing is really facinating me. Especially since hes being tried under Iraqi law for crimes he did while he was in charge. Legally speaking, wouldnt Saddam have some legit defenses? When he comes out saying " Im President of Iraq." isnt he technically right? Shoudlnt he be impeached.

Don't be silly. If he were President of the United States under the US constitution, yes.

But he is being tried by his own people under law they are making up as they go along, as they must at this time.

What is this irrational taboo about killing him, eh? Some folks need to be killed!

 

[evildave]

Technically, Saddam came into power by bombing the President's palace when he was in charge of their Air Force.

So, by that gold standard, he's been removed.

 

[Tmy]

Re: Re: Doesnt Saddam have to be impeached first?

Don't be silly. If he were President of the United States under the US constitution, yes.

But he is being tried by his own people under law they are making up as they go along, as they must at this time.

What is this irrational taboo about killing him, eh? Some folks need to be killed!

Yeah. The world needs a good ol fashion Musulini type wacking. Put those other dictators on notice.

But noooooo, we have to go through a kangaroo court trial. Which will just give Saddam a soapbox to sound off.

 

[Tmy]

Technically, Saddam came into power by bombing the President's palace when he was in charge of their Air Force.

So, by that gold standard, he's been removed.

Bur hes won a bunch of elections since then. Why just last year he won by 100%!!!
What was the ballot Q: "Do you support Saddam?"

Check Yes
Check No (and wait outside for the death squad)

 

[UserGoogol]

He had a No checkbox?

 

[iain]

He had a No checkbox?

Well now, the election would hardly have been very fair without a no checkbox. Anyway, the guy had to have some way to identify his enemies (if any of them were crazy enough to vote against him).

I guess it's the same logic that has airline officials asking me if I packed my own bag and if I left it unattended. Well, sure I packed my own bag, but an arab gentleman kindly looked after it for me whilst I went to the gents. Now can I get on my flight please...oh, you want me to come to this small room with you.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Not quite clear on the difference between government change and regime change, are you? If there was some rule under Saddam's reign giving presidents immunity (and it's quite likely there was), so what? That's like objecting to the legitimacy of the US presidential election because the Queen didn't give her blessing. That rule doesn't apply anymore. New regime, new rules.

 

[Blue Monk]

Saddam does not need to be impeached.

The government he headed no longer exists.

The government now in place was built from the ground up.

The only thing the old government has in common with the new is the territory it claims sovereignty over but Saddam was never any part of the government that exists there today.