Saddam on Trial

Saddams world wide humilation is great (although it could backfire depending how the trial goes).

BUt lets play devils avacado. On a strict legal analysis, wouldnt Sadamm win his trial? Or at least have a good chance. After all as President I imgaine he has great power to protect the interest of Iraq. Including the right to whack anyone who wanted to overthrow the govt.
 
Tmy said:
Saddams world wide humilation is great (although it could backfire depending how the trial goes).

BUt lets play devils avacado. On a strict legal analysis, wouldnt Sadamm win his trial? Or at least have a good chance. After all as President I imgaine he has great power to protect the interest of Iraq. Including the right to whack anyone who wanted to overthrow the govt.
Click to expand...

I wonder. I recall when they caught him that there were sort of "special rules" that concerned a head of state. I really don't recall the details.

But I suspect that even under Saddam, there were rules regarding murder. Now, he might say he acted legally but he would have to justify it.
 
Tmy said:
Well as President-Dictator-Czar-for-Life Im sure Saddam had the authority to do all those nasty things. Bush is using his prez powers to scoop up people, hold them without rights. Could you imagine him being tried for doing that? (there are lots of people would want to see that happen)
Click to expand...

"Bush" isn't scooping up anybody. The military is under some circumstances, while in others it is the Justice Dept., though I have no doubt that both the DoD and the JD have the President's full support. The issue is currently under debate by the courts, and if is determined that the detainees were seized and held illegally, then they should be released and seek damages. But charge the President with committing crimes? I don't see how...no matter how many want to see it happen.
 
Kodiak said:


But charge the President with committing crimes? I don't see how...no matter how many want to see it happen.
Click to expand...

Thats my point. Everything in your post could apply to Saddam. Im sure his underlings didnt ask his permission for every nasty thing they did.

Now say the US govt (all branches) was suddenly run by way out left wingers. A Bunch of Bush haters. They could try and convict Bush in just like the Saddam trial.
 
Tmy said:
On a strict legal analysis, wouldnt Sadamm win his trial? Or at least have a good chance. After all as President I imgaine he has great power to protect the interest of Iraq. Including the right to whack anyone who wanted to overthrow the govt.
Click to expand...

Do you have any knowledge about laws in Iraq?

What do they say about the powers of the President (or whatever his title was)? And what did they say before he came into power?

I don't have a clue.

I strongly suspect that you don't have, either.

So, could you please cease imagining things to support your views and find out what the real situation is before continuing to post on this subject.
 
My bad. It makes a mockery of the Iraqi system. Which I take it is new and improved.

Compared to Saddam, it sure is.

Try him in front of some world court for crimes agaisnt man.

Bad idea. The world court in Hague had long ago become a political tool of the UN. No, let those who he ruled over try him, if they can go for a fair trial, which presumably he would get.

But to try him under Iraqi law, thats kinda silly.

Why? So far as I know, Iraqi law forbids mass murder of innocents, like he did not only in Kuwait, but in his own country.

Waging agressive war--to quote the Nuremberg tribunal's charge--is only one, relatively minor, charge against Saddam. He might not even be charged with that. He WILL be charged with running a terror regime and torture chambers against his own people.
 
Skeptic:
"Waging agressive war--to quote the Nuremberg tribunal's charge--is only one, relatively minor, charge against Saddam."

You ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, it is the supreme international crime.
 
demon said:
Skeptic:
"Waging agressive war--to quote the Nuremberg tribunal's charge--is only one, relatively minor, charge against Saddam."

You f**kwit, it is the supreme international crime.
Click to expand...

Well, no. According to the Nuremberg tribunal, genocide and crimes against humanity were punished more severely--which should give Sudan, Iran, Syria, and many other Arab countries something to worry about (or WOULD have, if anybody cared about the victims of Arab despots).
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demon
Skeptic:
"Waging agressive war--to quote the Nuremberg tribunal's charge--is only one, relatively minor, charge against Saddam."

You f**kwit, it is the supreme international crime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, no. According to the Nuremberg tribunal, genocide and crimes against humanity
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well yes.

"To initiate a war of aggression is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." — from the Declaration in the Judgment of the International War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1946.
 
demon said:
Skeptic:
"Waging agressive war--to quote the Nuremberg tribunal's charge--is only one, relatively minor, charge against Saddam."

You f**kwit, it is the supreme international crime.
Click to expand...

Which might be relevant if he was being tried before an international tribunal. Do try to keep up with things, will you?

As to its supremacy, I suppose genocide against people in one's own nation is a misdemeanor in comparison, right?
 
Skeptic said:
Well, no. According to the Nuremberg tribunal, genocide and crimes against humanity were punished more severely--which should give Sudan, Iran, Syria, and many other Arab countries something to worry about (or WOULD have, if anybody cared about the victims of Arab despots).
Click to expand...

Ummm. Iran is Persian -- not Arabic. If you're going to show intolerance of a particular group, try to be sure that all your examples are members of that group.

:p
 
Tmy said:


Thats my point. Everything in your post could apply to Saddam. Im sure his underlings didnt ask his permission for every nasty thing they did.

Now say the US govt (all branches) was suddenly run by way out left wingers. A Bunch of Bush haters. They could try and convict Bush in just like the Saddam trial.
Click to expand...

If only Saddam had stopped at detaining suspected terrorists. Unfortunately, he didn't. That is why he is being tried in court.
 
I was able to see Saddam's approximately 1/2 hour of footage where he was placed before the Iraqi court to hear the preliminary charges against him, and came away with the following:

He was very uncomfortable, unsure, and tentative for the first 20 minutes or so before he was able to compose himself and project his typical self-assured and confident self.

He reminded me of Hermann Goering when he testified and responded to allegations during the Nurmberg trial. They both have that "Utopian" or "parallel universe" look about them - where you seriously wondered if you and they existed in the same world.
 
dsm said:

Ummm. Iran is Persian -- not Arabic. If you're going to show intolerance of a particular group, try to be sure that all your examples are members of that group.
Click to expand...

Well, he has already included Turkey among Arab countries before, so I don't think that ethnic accuracy is listed very high on his goals for communication.

(I wonder what's his opinion on Indonesia on this respect).
 
LW said:


No.

That is just the way it should be.

He committed most of his crimes against his own countrymen. They should get the first-pick for the trial.

And as I have posted before, I'd prefer the Iraqis nail him using as many laws that he himself instituted as possible.
Click to expand...
Steal a loaf of bread, get your hand cut off. Go out in public without a veil, get stoned to death. Gas thousands of your own people and invade another country, get a fair trial. If he was tried under Islamic law he wouldn't see the next day.
 
Bottle or the Gun said:

Steal a loaf of bread, get your hand cut off. Go out in public without a veil, get stoned to death. Gas thousands of your own people and invade another country, get a fair trial. If he was tried under Islamic law he wouldn't see the next day.
Click to expand...

Mind you, Iraq was not run under Islamic law.
 
Grammatron said:


Getting killed by irony, nice.
Click to expand...

There's a precedent of this kind of thing in Finnish history: in the late 20s "Lapuan liike", a Finnish fascist movement managed to pressure the government for issuing a law that mandated dispersing any organization that plotted for overthrowing the legal government. The law was aimed against the Communistic Party and it actually succeeded in making it illegal.

However, in 1932 Lapuan liike itself was disbanded under the very same law that they had lobbied for...
 
Skeptic said:
Bad idea. The world court in Hague had long ago become a political tool of the UN.
Click to expand...
The International Court of Justice is meant to settle disputes between nations, the International Criminal Court is designed to try people for the crimes Saddam Hussein has done, but only of countries that ratified the Rome Statute and only of crimes that happened after ratifying it, and the crimes he commited that the ICC might try him for happened in the late eighties or early nineties.
It has no retroactive power.

So if one would try Saddam for an International tribunal, a new ad-hoc tribunal must be instituted, like the Rwanda tribunal or the Jugoslavia tribunal. That means you can create one that is not a political tool of the UN, but instead on of the Bush administration, if you want it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom