The trial of Saddam Hussein

[JonnyBGood]

After doing a little bit of research on how precisely saddam is being tried I've emerged with a few conflicting opinions. I would assume that most of us would, fairly reasonably, believe him to be guilty of some fairly appalling human rights violations, deserving of at least some form of penalty (no zhukov this is neither the time nor the place to point out that others are as well). While we are obviously not a court of law I'd feel fairly confident in pronouncing saddam complicit in say the 'kurdish genocide' or, obviously enough, the invasion of Kuwait.

However the court that is trying saddam hussein is a farce. Firstly the court was established by an occupying power and, given precedent, should not be tolerated as an acceptable means of changing the legal system of a particular country. Secondly he is being tried by his own countrymen, in what sort of insane world this could possibly be considered an impartial court is beyond my imagination. Third the guilt clause is different, not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather "satisfied of guilt". Fourth the death penalty can be applied (it cannot be applied in the International Criminal Court). Neither the ICC nor the UN is supporting the trial. Now while I personally do not take issue with all of these points I suspect that most of us would have a problem with at least one or two aspects of the trial.

So what do I hope for from the trial? Obviously I'd like to see a proper trial against saddam for crimes against humanity to take place, but this looks fairly unlikely considering the pace with which events are moving and the lack of "important" objections against the court's legitimacy. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he will be found guilty (and only slightly more that he really is guilty). However I do not believe this is the way a reconstituted country should start it's new existence. We should not railroad through unjust legislation in order to quickly try someone just to demonstrate the effectiveness of both the new government and that of the occupying power(s). I would not object to extraordinary measures being taken to prevent the deaths of innocents or the dissolution of all civil authority. This is not the case. No-one will die if the time is taken to set out the legal system of Iraq properly before trying Saddam. I would hate to see all the effort and suffering involved in the liberation of Iraq get pissed away for short-term political gain.

If it is decided that the court does not have jurisidiction over saddam and he must be retried at a later date so well and good. If this is not the case and unfortunately the trial proceeds I hope his execution goes off without a hitch. He deserves no better. But the people of Iraq do.

[Yahwe]

The problem with a well written thread that constructs a clever and convincing argument is that there is nothing to say in reply accept "I agree".

so ....

I agree.

[Ste]

it's probably going to be 3 months before the trial begins properly though.
The defence need time to study the documents so it'll be delayed...

[Dante Hicks]

Obviously you are correct but I'm not sure of any easy alternative. I guess maybe having a Japanese trial or something like that would be better, but given the state of Mid-Eastern Politics seems unlikely.

I liked this quote from the Wikipedia article on Nuremberg :

The defendants were not allowed to appeal or affect the selection of judges. Some people argue that, because the judges were appointed by the victors, the Tribunal was not impartial and could not be regarded as a court in the true sense. A. L. Goodheart, Professor at Oxford, opposed this view, writing:

[pig]

I aggree what you said. I guess for the USA the reason they have set up this trial, is not to bring justice. If justice was to be brought it would be done at an international level. Rather I believe the hope woul be that its more of an image rather than anything substantial. The thinking must be that if Saddam is found guilty then that will be another sign to the iraqi people that he is evil, he is never going to gain power again, also he was tried by the iraqis for the people, by the people. Finally if he is killed then thats the end of the chapter of saddam.

I honestly believe this trial is a farce, being tried by his own people, I believe the defence team are going on the strand of "its unconstitutional". Still will be interesting to see how it develops.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I liked this quote from the Wikipedia article on Nuremberg :

I think he's got slightly the wrong end of the stick to be honest (excuse me doctor I think I know a little something about medicine). I think the spy thing is different, sure whoever the guy was committing "crimes against their country" but this is rather abstract at best. If, let us say, the guy accused of spying was responsible for leaking evidence leading to the death of the son or brother or mother of one of the judges this would make that judge unacceptable (I hope). A huge number of people in Iraq were affected on this level by saddam hussein. For example the chief judge is Kurdish according to the bbc.

[dda]

Saddam should be tried by the same system which was employed at the time that the crimes were committed.

He could then be executed and the just trial could be held at a tlater date.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by dda

Saddam should be tried by the same system which was employed at the time that the crimes were committed.

He could then be executed and the just trial could be held at a tlater date.

I suspect that he was immune from prosecution under "the same system which was employed at the time that the crimes were committed".

[Cooling]

I thought the world had moved on from the Star Chamber

Evidently not.