Sadaam's trial

[Argus]

If they don't want to just shoot this guy they should at least establish some order in the court. No American judge would allow this sort of behaviour. A defendant in a US trial would be shackled and gagged if he couldn't calm down, and lawyers who acted up would be arrested for contempt of court and face disbarment.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,,

If they don't want to just shoot this guy they should at least establish some order in the court. No American judge would allow this sort of behaviour.

I don't believe an American court would have had this trial.

[tml12]

If they don't want to just shoot this guy they should at least establish some order in the court. No American judge would allow this sort of behaviour. A defendant in a US trial would be shackled and gagged if he couldn't calm down, and lawyers who acted up would be arrested for contempt of court and face disbarment.

I agree that there should be more order in the trial...

[Durgan]

The trial is a total farce. The verdict is GUILTY and the penalty is DEATH. Everyone knows the crimes, so why the silly trial? Sadam, et al, are doing exactly what they should, disrupt. The lawyers act like asses anyway in most court rooms, so their actions mean nothing, as long as they get paid. Actually a few days for contempt in an Iraq jail would be good for the lawyers. The judge could keep them there for a few days before being released due to the necessary paperwork, etc.

Sadam should be set free with the excuse that a fair trial cannot take place. Simply open the jail door and kick him out into the street of Baghdad. This is a simple solution.

Durgan.

The trouble with lawyers is 99% make the other 1% look bad. Bob Edwards 1916

Durgan.

[geoffrey]

Sadam should be set free with the excuse that a fair trial cannot take place. Simply open the jail door and kick him out into the street of Baghdad. This is a simple solution.

Unfreakin believable. At least give the US credit for trying to let the Iraqi's try one of the biggest human rights abusers in the world. This is as fair of a trial he's going to get.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear geoffrey,

Unfreakin believable. At least give the US credit for trying to let the Iraqi's try one of the biggest human rights abusers in the world. This is as fair of a trial he's going to get.

To give at least the veneer of legitimacy, Saddam should have been tried at The Hague, in front of an international tribunal. Besides, We often support human rights abusers if it is in our interests to do so. Like Saddam. Or Suharto. Or 'Papa Doc' Duvalier. Or Pinochet. Or Taylor of Liberia. Or Hamas (created by Israel). Or fanatical anti-western Muslim extremists in Afghanistan.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/06/...l?from=storyrhs

http://www.burmalibrary.org/reg.burma/arch...1/msg00535.html

Imagine a guy with such heinous human rights violations

> in his past and we are bestowing him with our highest honor?

>

> The white hatting didn't go over well with many people. At the mayor's

> office later, Ald. Barry Erskine stuck his head in and asked: "Did the

> Chinese leader get white hatted today?"

>

> "Yes," said a mayor's assistant. Erskine shook his head in disgust. "That's

> going way too far," he said, noting the honor is supposed to be for the

> "good guys." He's right.

>

> Ald. John Schmal said while he believes a reception is necessary for such a

> figure, the white hatting wasn't. He's also right. Maybe they should have

> given him a black hat. But before we dump over Mayor Al Duerr -- who has

> never hidden the fact that he's pro-China and still won three terms -- it

> must be said the white hatting is just the latest in a series of sellouts

> going on for years.

>

> I don't like it, I wouldn't have done it, but I realize the damage was done

> a long time ago when we didn't stand up to the Beijing Butchers in 1989.

> Our political leaders then, and now, are gutless opportunist.

>

> I think it's time we look at ourselves. I just wish we as a North American

> society would admit the truth that we don't collectively care about human

> rights in this world -- especially when a buck is at stake. We don't

> collectively care about a lot of things. Just look at all the compromises

> we make with our environment. The truth is we only care about money.

[Durgan]

Sadam should be set free with the excuse that a fair trial cannot take place. Simply open the jail door and kick him out into the street of Baghdad. This is a simple solution.

Unfreakin believable. At least give the US credit for trying to let the Iraqi's try one of the biggest human rights abusers in the world. This is as fair of a trial he's going to get.

Lovey: How long do you think Sadam would survive on the street of Baghdad? I am sorry I didn't explain the comment in at least 10 paragraphs. I wrongly assumed one can visualize and imagine, but I attribute too much efficacy to the public educational system.

Durgan.

[crazymf]

$0.25 and another buck and a half for his brother in laws and pals sitting next to him.

Lead is cheap.

[August1991]

The Anatomy of a Dictatorship:

Tariq Aziz, six other top officials under Saddam and the deposed Iraqi leader himself have been on trial for seven months. They are accused of being behind the arrests of hundreds of people in the town of Dujail in retaliation for an attempt on Saddam's life in 1982.

...

"The Dujail case is part of a chain of assassination operations against officials and I am one of the victims," Aziz told the court as he testified for the defence on Wednesday.

"The president of the state in any country, if faced with an assassination attempt, should take procedures to punish those who conduct and help this operation," said Aziz, who also served as Iraq's deputy prime minister under Saddam.

"According to the law, people who support this assassination can also be convicted."

CBC

Handwriting experts have authenticated Saddam Hussein's signature on more documents related to a crackdown on Shia Muslims, the chief judge in his trial said today.

It has been reported that an order approving death sentences for 148 Shia Muslim men and boys from the town of Dujail in the 1980s was among the documents.

The Guardian

So the arbitrary arrest of hundreds and the death of over a hundred are suitable ways to deal with an assassination attempt. This is the way the Mafia operates.

[gc1765]

Tariq Aziz, six other top officials under Saddam and the deposed Iraqi leader himself have been on trial for seven months. They are accused of being behind the arrests of hundreds of people in the town of Dujail in retaliation for an attempt on Saddam's life in 1982.

At least Saddam has now been indicted for genocide, otherwise the trial would be a complete joke. Killing 148 people for attempting to assassinate him may be wrong (as opposed to simply putting them in jail for the rest of their life, as the U.S. would have done for an attempted presidential assassination!), but his real crime is genocide. Why has the court not focused on that?

[BHS]

At least Saddam has now been indicted for genocide, otherwise the trial would be a complete joke. Killing 148 people for attempting to assassinate him may be wrong (as opposed to simply putting them in jail for the rest of their life, as the U.S. would have done for an attempted presidential assassination!), but his real crime is genocide. Why has the court not focused on that?

Because, believe it or not, genocide is very difficult to prove as a criminal matter. Heads of states, particularly authoritarian states, have enormous power to pass laws that justify their actions and to otherwise cover their tracks.

The world is aware of some of what went on in Iraq. We are aware that Saddam committed acts that we consider genocide against broad segments of the citizenry nominally under his protection. Ironically, it is because we "know" that Saddam is a genocidal tyrant that any criminal trial focused on him is a farce.

For a trial to be just and to have meaning, there has to be a presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. There has to exist the possibility that the accused will walk out of court a free man, and that society will accept the court's decision to set him free.

In this case, the court has decided to go with a single event that occurred, where there is bountiful evidence and testimony, because it will be easier to "prove" Saddam's "criminality".

But we already know that Saddam will be found guilty. There is no other acceptable outcome.

A trial that results in a guilty verdict regardless of the evidence and testimony presented occurs in what is called a "kangaroo court" because it jumps from accusation to sentencing without the need for all the tricky middle bits. It is a travesty of justice.

We insist on having trials for dictators because the formal familiarity of the courtroom eases our conscience, and becuase we don't have the stomach for the rougher justice they deserve. It would be better to have a truth and reconcilliation tribunal for the people of Iraq to air their grievances against Saddam, and to end it with his summary execution. Because really, that's what his trial (such as it is) will amount to, except that it will take longer, cost more, and tarnish the good reputation of courtly justice in the process.

We need, as an international community, to realize that it is faulty to confuse genocidal tyranny with common criminality. No matter how many people he kills, no matter what his twisted motives may be, the worst serial killer is incapable of genocide. This is a barbarity reserved soley for people who hold the reigns of the State. It does us no good to treat Saddam as we would a criminal, because by the nature of his position he was far beyond what even the worst criminal could be.

(PS: For those of you already thinking that you'd like to see this argument applied to GWB, I say go for it. I would enjoy seeing a country like, say, Greece trying to arrest and summarily execute an American President for genocide. It goes without saying that my entire argument rests on a warm, freshly baked crust of Victor's Justice. Incidentally, so does the current trial. But to get to the point where Victor's Justice applies you first need a victory. And, damned unfair though it may be, there isn't going to be that kind of victory for whinging, hypocritical, irresponsible little pissant Euro-weeny states against the US any time soon.)

[lost&outofcontrol]

This is the way the Mafia operates.

It's also the way the US army operates.

Mass murder of Fallujah residents with chemical weapons. Something else we didn't see on cnn & Co.

The difference between the saviour and the tyrant is that one is the winner and the other lost.

[geoffrey]

This is the way the Mafia operates.

It's also the way the US army operates.

Mass murder of Fallujah residents with chemical weapons. Something else we didn't see on cnn & Co.

The difference between the saviour and the tyrant is that one is the winner and the other lost.

Motive? Didn't think there was one.

Accidents happen in war, its not a pretty little dance. Do you condemn the Allied forces for bombing Berlin factories, there was collateral damage then too?

If we chose not to bomb Berlin, we'd all be Nazi's right now...