Saddam to face trial in "a few weeks"

demon

Master Poster
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Messages
2,736
Late October/early November, perhaps.
Gee, I wonder if anything else might be happening in a few weeks?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraqi Minister: Saddam Faces Trial Soon

Monday September 6, 2004 2:16 AM

KUWAIT CITY (AP) - Saddam Hussein and other detained members of the deposed Iraqi regime will face trial within ``a few weeks,'' Iraq's minister of state said in Kuwait on Sunday.

``The trial of Saddam and the others on the black list will start within a few weeks ... before the end of this year and before (Iraqi) elections,'' Qassim Dawoud told reporters during a visit to Kuwait City.

He did not mention any dates.

Dawoud also said U.S. authorities will have no influence over the trial process, which he expected to take a long time.

``We have deprived ourselves from having any influence on Saddam's trial,'' Dawoud said. ``How could we allow foreign entities to interfere in Saddam's trial?''

Since his capture last December, Saddam has been held in U.S. detention at an undisclosed location awaiting trial on broad charges of killing rivals, gassing Kurds, invading Kuwait and suppressing uprisings.

Kuwait is also preparing papers on war crimes that Saddam's occupying army is alleged to have committed after it invaded in August 1990.

Iraqi forces are accused of killing about 1,000 Kuwaitis and other nationals, sabotaging Kuwait's oil wells, and looting the national archives. They were driven out of the country by a U.S.-led coalition in the 1991 Gulf War.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qassim Dawoud, Iraq's Minister of State asks:-
"How could we allow foreign entities to interfere in Saddam's trial?"

How indeed? Well, how about the way reported by the New York Times back in March 2004:-

"Following a White House directive, the Justice Department is sending a high-level team of prosecutors and investigators to Iraq to take charge of assembling and organizing the evidence to be used in a war crimes trial of Saddam Hussein, administration and Iraqi officials said in recent days.

The previously undisclosed directive signed by Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, directs the government to take the initiative in preparing a case against Mr. Hussein that will ultimately be run by Iraqis. The order, issued in January, gives the Justice Department the authority to act as the lead agency in the effort.

The first officials in a delegation of about 50 lawyers, investigators and prosecutors from the Justice Department are leaving this weekend for Iraq, a Justice Department official said. The group will be assigned to a new office called the Regime Crimes Adviser's Office under the American occupation authority."

The US agrees it's a tricky business; after all:-

"The effort to develop a case involves a delicate balancing act for the administration, which is trying to turn over as complete a brief as possible for the Iraqis to use against Mr. Hussein without appearing to dominate the process in a way that could undercut the independence of the Iraqi authorities. "We're trying to balance a bunch of interests here," said one senior administration official. "We intend to bring quite a few resources to the table but not too many so it looks like a completely American process.""

I suspect that the one area of the trial forbidden to 'foreign entities' will be assisting the defence. So far, Hussein has had no access to a lawyer, his defence team have been told that his courtroom lawyer must be Iraqi; Salem Chalabi has deferred the decision on whether non-Iraqi lawyers will be permitted to assist the defence in any capacity.

Quote:
"Kuwait is also preparing papers on war crimes that Saddam's occupying army is alleged to have committed after it invaded in August 1990."

The one thing Kuwait must not leave out of their deposition is the fact that premeture babies were thrown out of incubators and left to die on the floor.
 
"sounds fair?"
Hey Ed, who am I to disagree?
God has spoken...I`m saying nuffink...keep that dialogue of revelation or whatever it is out of Saddams courtroom!

Bye the way, what did you do on the seventh day? Be honest here...you can always pm me ;)
 
Seriously, what is the problem here?

Start with first causes. Do you think that Saddam should be brought to trial?

Do you agree that Iraq should try him?

Is there any way, be honest now, that this could occur without people saying that the US is ...... (fill in horrible behavior here)?

So, what is the alternative? Don't complain, lay out your thoughts. After all whining is so unplesent. Do you think, for example, that he could get a fair trial (if he should have a trial) if he was at the world court and the prosecuter was French? Or maybe he should be tried by a pan-islamic court. Would that be fair? Would you subscribe to a venue where the penalty might be kneeling in a square and being decapitated? Or, perhaps should be be tried like criminals in the US are? Each place where he committed crimes would be a venue. So, after Iraq he would be trundled off to Iran and then Kuwait? Would Kuwait be a problem because you fear that be have subourned their entire Government and they cannot be fair?

Are you of the belief that any trial is inherently unfair because the US has infiltrated everywhere?

You sort of laid out a bunch of innuendo with no real position or solution so you can forgive my confusion.
 
I said before...if we are going to prosecute Saddam, why aren`t we prosecuting Allawi?

I have no problem with prosecuting God Dam Saddam...but a bit of consistency wouldn`t go amiss.

Would it?
 
demon said:
I said before...if we are going to prosecute Saddam, why aren`t we prosecuting Allawi?

Are you an Iraqi? Your use of the word "we" is confusing.
 
demon said:
I said before...if we are going to prosecute Saddam, why aren`t we prosecuting Allawi?

I have no problem with prosecuting God Dam Saddam...but a bit of consistency wouldn`t go amiss.

Would it?

Not at all but there is no particular linkage that I can see. I guess I could argue for the fact that foreign policy is a bit of a movable feast and a nation's selfish self interests sometimes make for inconsistancy. I am sure that you, like I, am awaiting the lucid and fair foreign policy that Evildave is currently working diligently on. I am certain that these types of things will be adressed fairly. I am almost beside myself with anticipation. Are you?
 
Rob Lister:
"Are you an Iraqi? Your use of the word "we" is confusing."

No I`m not an Iraqi but my sisters daughter happens to be married to one...he`s a nice bloke by the way...doesn`t want to blow anyone up.

I use the word "we" because I refer to the "coalition of the willing" installed Iraqi "government", by our "freedom exporting" leaders.
I`d be interested if you want to expand the boundaries of "Newspeak" and talk about sovereignty. You got a new definition of that? I dare you.
 
Rob Lister said:
Are you an Iraqi? Your use of the word "we" is confusing.

I suspect, though I am not positive, that it is a result of his belief that the US-we is actually prosecuting him.

It, of course, raises an interesting thought problem: all other things being equal, where would you like to be tried?
US?
UK?
Iraq?
North Korea?
China?
France?
Syria?
By the Palistinian authority?
Bermuda?
Isreal?
Somalia?
 
Ed:
"I am certain that these types of things will be adressed fairly...."

Oh come on.

You see no linkage between Saddam and Allawi? How come?
Or are you just doing the "moveable feast" thing? If you are thats a hell of a lot more honest than most and I dont have a problem with that.
 
"It, of course, raises an interesting thought problem: all other things being equal, where would you like to be tried?
US?
UK?
Iraq?
North Korea?
China?
France?
Syria?
By the Palistinian authority?
Bermuda?
Isreal?
Somalia?"

Texas?
 
demon said:
Rob Lister:
"Are you an Iraqi? Your use of the word "we" is confusing."

No I`m not an Iraqi but my sisters daughter happens to be married to one...he`s a nice bloke by the way...doesn`t want to blow anyone up.

I use the word "we" because I refer to the "coalition of the willing" installed Iraqi "government", by our "freedom exporting" leaders.
I`d be interested if you want to expand the boundaries of "Newspeak" and talk about sovereignty. You got a new definition of that? I dare you.

Well, the U.S. either will or will not exert their influence during his trial. Your suggesting that they necessarily must because Iraqi elections have not yet taken place is noted but I think it misses the point of who constitutes "we".

For example, at Saddam's initial hearing there was a judge. Who appointed him as a judge? Did we do it or did the Iraqi's do it? If memory serves, it was the Iraqi's, specifically one Iraqi, Saddam. I could be mistaken but that's what I remember.
 
Ed said:
I suspect, though I am not positive, that it is a result of his belief that the US-we is actually prosecuting him.

It, of course, raises an interesting thought problem: all other things being equal, where would you like to be tried?
US?
UK?
Iraq?
North Korea?
China?
France?
Syria?
By the Palistinian authority?
Bermuda?
Isreal?
Somalia?

The Hague seems like a good place to be tried. If you don´t mind the Europeans giving you a fair trial, that is.
 
Rob Lister:
"For example, at Saddam's initial hearing there was a judge. Who appointed him as a judge? Did we do it or did the Iraqi's do it? If memory serves, it was the Iraqi's, specifically one Iraqi, Saddam. I could be mistaken but that's what I remember."

You must have forgot;)

We appointed the judge, via our elected reps. The Iraqis can't have done it, because no elected reps exist as yet.
Nice eh?
 
Originally posted by demon
Ed:
"I am certain that these types of things will be adressed fairly...."

Oh come on.

I am certain that Evildaves statement of a Progressives view of US Forign Policy will be fair. If you doubt his inherent fairness take it up with him.

You see no linkage between Saddam and Allawi? How come?
Or are you just doing the "moveable feast" thing? If you are thats a hell of a lot more honest than most and I dont have a problem with that.

A country's interests might demand inconsistancy. A person's individual behavior might demand inconsistancy. So what? It shocks me that people are so naive that they don't see that a country's self interests are paramount. Always was always will be. [/QUOTE]
 
demon said:
Rob Lister:
"For example, at Saddam's initial hearing there was a judge. Who appointed him as a judge? Did we do it or did the Iraqi's do it? If memory serves, it was the Iraqi's, specifically one Iraqi, Saddam. I could be mistaken but that's what I remember."

You must have forgot;)

We appointed the judge, via our elected reps. The Iraqis can't have done it, because no elected reps exist as yet.
Nice eh?

SADDAM: Hussein Majid, the president of the Republic of Iraq. ...
JUDGE: Profession? Former president of the Republic of Iraq?
SADDAM: No, present. Current. It's the will of the people. ...
JUDGE: Mr. Saddam, I am the investigative judge of the central court of Iraq.
SADDAM: So that I have to know, you are an investigative judge of the central court of Iraq? What resolution, what law formed this court? ... Oh, the coalition forces? So you are an Iraqi that — you are representing the occupying forces?
JUDGE: No, I'm an Iraqi representing Iraq. ... I was appointed by a presidential decree under the former regime. ... I am a judge. In the former regime, I respect the judges. And I am resuming and continuing my work.
 
They shoudlve just tossed him to an angry mob, Mousillini style.

But if we're gonna go thru the motions I think the "fairest" trial would have to wait until after national elections. THat way you can somewhat avoid the whole apperence of the coalition installed kangaroo court.

What kind of charge is "supressing uprisings"? Since when do govt heads allow uprisings?
 
Chaos said:
The Hague seems like a good place to be tried. If you don´t mind the Europeans giving you a fair trial, that is.
How is this a European issue? Maybe the Europeans who illegally skimmed money from the "oil for food" pragram could be tried there. I'm sure it would go on for 5 or 6 years, if anyone actually is tried for that scandal, which is doubtful.

How's that Milosevic trial going at the Hague? Over 3 1/2 years so far, no end in sight. I predict Milosevic will die of old age before his trial comes to a conclusion. Meanwhile, he has the stage of the UN International Criminal Tribunal court to spout his maniacal beliefs and toy w/ the prosecution, and frankly he has made them all look foolish.

I do not wish to see Saddam provided w/ a pulpit ala Milosevic.
 
WildCat said:
How's that Milosevic trial going at the Hague? Over 3 1/2 years so far, no end in sight. I predict Milosevic will die of old age before his trial comes to a conclusion. Meanwhile, he has the stage of the UN International Criminal Tribunal court to spout his maniacal beliefs and toy w/ the prosecution, and frankly he has made them all look foolish.

I do not wish to see Saddam provided w/ a pulpit ala Milosevic.

Well you could have a quick trial where the defendant is muzzzled. But wouldnt be able to call it a fair trial now would you.

The reason Milo is making them look foolish is cause the whole "crimes against humanity" and putting deposed leaders on international trial for war crimes IS FOOLISH!! Its all bullflop. Its just a show to provide this illusion of fairness. Im sure you could try pretty much every world leader for somthing. Its just the losers who end up on trial.
 

Back
Top Bottom