Saddam on trial...

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Vaio

Go on ,admit it Sandsnake, you think he did it as well dont you

~Vaio~

THAT BASTARD IS GUILTY! I'm tellin you! I don't care if the cops are racist or the glove may not have fit when he put it on wrong! He cut them up like it was goin out of style and he's crazy if he thinks we're falling for his charade!

oh wait...you mean Saddam? Yeah, sure, he did it.

[Sandsnake]

in other news though, has anyone else noticed that Saddam's pants seem a little short in the courtroom pictures? I mean, you'd figure they'd have gotten him some pants that fit in all this time.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

Until they think they have some real control over their own future, the violence will remain as strong and fervent as it has been. Once they realize that things are moving along and Iraqis are calling the shots, things will simmer down a bit.

Whether it's fair,or the whole thing is a US-directed show or not, Iraqis are going to be able to say that Saddam came to justice and it was an Iraqi that handed it out. What you think from your safe little world means very, very little in this.

bear in mind alot of the violence there is the result of outsiders, who don't give a rats ass and actually want to destroy any iraqi chance at self control.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

What you think from your safe little world means very, very little in this.

Oh come on, that exact argument could be used in 90% of discussions. It's very weak. We're all well aware of our relative unimportance in all these issues. That doesn't stop us having political opinions.

I mean, who REALLY cares about what we think of animal rights, abortion, American foriegn policy, England's football management style, philosophical freedom, whether OJ is guilty, etc. If we're following that principle consistently the only thing we can discuss is our own little lives.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I don't see how it will be actively unfree. Regardless of your opinion on the interim government, simply stating that they are a 'puppet' body does not prove the whether or not the trial will be illiegitimate.

Well, it's not really a matter of "proof" as such. In a legal sense, if the judge at my trial had been directly appointed by my main enemies then I'd have a reasonable grounds to claim an unfair trial.

Also, if we are to presume states do have legitimate powers then surely they are "deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed" (to quote the Dec of Ind). Whatever you think of the interim government, the only place they have derived their powers is the superior military force of the United States. That, for me, puts the legitimacy of the central government (and any major trials they enact) decidedly at question.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, it's not really a matter of "proof" as such. In a legal sense, if the judge at my trial had been directly appointed by my main enemies then I'd have a reasonable grounds to claim an unfair trial.

Er, what happens if your "main enemy" is the state? Every ex-dictator, anarchist, successionist, revolutionary, terrorist, etc. will face a judge who's been directly appointed by his/her main enemies.

Also, if we are to presume states do have legitimate powers then surely they are "deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed" (to quote the Dec of Ind). Whatever you think of the interim government, the only place they have derived their powers is the superior military force of the United States. That, for me, puts the legitimacy of the central government (and any major trials they enact) decidedly at question.

That could be an issue--if the trial actually gets underway before the election.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, it's not really a matter of "proof" as such. In a legal sense, if the judge at my trial had been directly appointed by my main enemies then I'd have a reasonable grounds to claim an unfair trial.

We should base the fairness of the trial entirely on the judge's actions in the set trial, and the procedures of the trial. Whether he was appointed by Tom, Dick or Harry is irrelevant if Tom, Dick or Harry let a totally fair trial be conducted and do not coerce the Judge, etc.

Of course, prima facie, it looks a bit dodgy, but that's a completely different point.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Er, what happens if your "main enemy" is the state? Every ex-dictator, anarchist, successionist, revolutionary, terrorist, etc. will face a judge who's been directly appointed by his/her main enemies.

Which is why all of those groups should think they are under unfair trials. (if they had any sense at least). Whether everyone else sees it that way is another matter.

That could be an issue--if the trial actually gets underway before the election.

Yeah, although I'm dubious of any election where there's already a quasi-legally installed incumbent to vote for/against. I'm not saying there's an easy alternative however, but if the election simply comes down to "Current Government, Y/N?" then I'll skeptical on their legitimacy.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Whether he was appointed by Tom, Dick or Harry is irrelevant if Tom, Dick or Harry let a totally fair trial be conducted and do not coerce the Judge, etc.

It's highly relevant if Tom Dick or Harry are the ones establishing the rules of the trial (indirectly) and had a reasonably free choice in selecting the interim administration. It's a bit like newspaper owners and their editors.

Most newspaper owners do not need to coerce their editors to print stories which follow the party line. They are only going to select an editor who reasonably follows their way of thinking. Newspaper owners only have to directly intervene if the editor has been incompetent, or swayed too far from acceptable material, etc.

Granted, there is more objectivity in a trial, for which any observer can judge (no pun intended) when it begins. But it seems reasonable to condemn the trial before it begins on the grounds that it has been established by a body which has not shown it is the legitimate voice of the Iraqi people. This does not nullify any judgement they make (as I believe justice can take place on the individual level) and I do not hope Saddam "gets away with it", of course.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

-Snip-

I'm not sure how this reflects on a court of law, though. There is either going to be strict impartiality, or there isn't.

And yes, obviously we should examine the means by which the trial is conducted. If the rules set down by the interim administration are unfair, then we should say so. That was pretty much my point.

But again, I don't see any solid grounds for unfairness at the moment. It neither seems likely or expedient; the potential for moaning about the origin of the court and it's rules is inherent in any scenario like this, but it's a fairly mundane point. I can understand a concern over victors justice and all that, but that concern is only formed from the idea of potential unfairnes, not solid likeliness.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

But it seems reasonable to condemn the trial before it begins on the grounds that it has been established by a body which has not shown it is the legitimate voice of the Iraqi people.

How would you define a show of legitimacy, out of curiosity? Mass-participation in a future election will not automatically confer this, as revolutionary parties may gain a majority of seats.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

but that concern is only formed from the idea of potential unfairnes, not solid likeliness.

When a man could be executed as a result of the trial I think it's reasonable to err on the side of caution. Again, I'm merely echoing the liberal critique here. Let's say the situation was different and George Bush Jnr had visited the region but had crash landed in the middle of an area held by rebels (who are somehow capable of evading capture, ninja style). They decide to hold a trial for Mr Bush, observing the formalities of liberal justice but with a judge selected by themselves. Would the US / UK accept the legality of such a trial?

How would you define a show of legitimacy, out of curiosity? Mass-participation in a future election will not automatically confer this, as revolutionary parties may gain a majority of seats.

If revolutionary (or anti-system) parties do gain a majority of seats that would definitely show the system to be illegitimate (depending on the context of the vote, etc). It comes down the usual Politics 101 stuff - regular voting, political parties representing the diversity of the nation, active civil society supporting the state, etc.

I'm fond of the saying that the nation undergoes a daily referendum in each of it's members. If they wake up and enough think "I am English" and there is no competing claim, the nation exists for another day. The state appears to be in a similar position. (obviously this is a horrible simplification, but you know what I mean)

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

When a man could be executed as a result of the trial I think it's reasonable to err on the side of caution. Again, I'm merely echoing the liberal critique here.

Well, I said I understood the point, not that I particularly accepted it.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If revolutionary (or anti-system) parties do gain a majority of seats that would definitely show the system to be illegitimate (depending on the context of the vote, etc). It comes down the usual Politics 101 stuff - regular voting, political parties representing the diversity of the nation, active civil society supporting the state, etc.

But this would take years to determine. Is your statement that the trial is being conducted by an illegitimate government a critique, or an observation? If it's a critique, then how would you resolve it?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

But this would take years to determine. Is your statement that the trial is being conducted by an illegitimate government a critique, or an observation? If it's a critique, then what how would you resolve it?

It's an observation. We're hypocritical as we would never stand for it, so in that sense it's a critique.

If after the elections "pro-system" parties win the overwhelming majority of the vote then that will give some legitimacy to the Iraqi government and any actions they choose to be involved in. Obviously I'm using legitimacy here in it's more broad, bland sense, not in a radical anarchist sense or whatever.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Oh come on, that exact argument could be used in 90% of discussions. It's very weak. We're all well aware of our relative unimportance in all these issues. That doesn't stop us having political opinions.

It's fine to argue, but keeping it in perspective is a bit important too...you can argue the finer points of ethics, morality, or politics all you want. However, the second someone seems to think that something is a bad idea or should be done differently because it doesn't look legit to the West, they need a sound slapping. When the well-being of the Iraqi people is the concern, the opinions of the British mean about piss. I wasn't arguing against debate, just the slowly encroaching egocentric view that what the west thinks matters.

If Iraq is in a place where they can't worry about what the international community thinks, then the international community needs to stop worrying about themselves and more about what's going to get Iraq through this fking horrendous mess we've made.

That said, whatever Saddam says or does, he's right about one thing: It's all theater. I'm sure it will be long, drawn-out, exactly detailed, but it's unfair in the simple fact that he's guilty and everyone knows it. They're just going to outline, itemize, and make it all official sounding before they chop his head off (or shoot him).

[Evergreen]

Tbh I wanna see someone have the balls to make and the people have the balls to vote for a party that's sole policy would be to push through legislation and try President Bush and PM blair for war crimes and possession of WMD's in their respective countries.

Yes yes that whole omg what about the economy and other shite they'll be in charge of, omg wow just call an election after they have those ****ers up there for hanging, I'm sure it isn't all going to fall apart in 3-6 months and I'm pretty sure given the intellect of most politicians that come and go from parliament/senate that the world isn't going to fall apart if you vote in other people who may or may not have a clue how to run an economy.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Which is why all of those groups should think they are under unfair trials. (if they had any sense at least).

And of course all those groups do claim to be victims of unfair trials, so no surprise there.

Whether everyone else sees it that way is another matter.

That's really the only matter of interest, in my view.

Yeah, although I'm dubious of any election where there's already a quasi-legally installed incumbent to vote for/against. I'm not saying there's an easy alternative however, but if the election simply comes down to "Current Government, Y/N?" then I'll skeptical on their legitimacy.

I believe legitimacy is more a function of a government's respect for individual rights rather than the process by which it came into being; of course having both would be the best.

[Sandsnake]

can't charge them for possession of WMD though...I know it's hard to comprehend, but unlike Iraq, it's not illegal for them to do so.

War crimes, just depends on which lawyer you talk to and what agenda they have...would be interesting to see it play out in a court, even if it was just intellectual masturbation.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

bear in mind alot of the violence there is the result of outsiders, who don't give a rats ass and actually want to destroy any iraqi chance at self control.

While this is true, the biggest problem is that the local population isn't turning them out in the streets. Hunting foreign militants gets alot easier once the locals start telling you where they are instead of acting like nothing is going on.

To do this, we have to convince the Iraqi people that they're fighting themselves and not the US. That's the hard part, obviously, but things like the trial and the handover help. They might be puppet, but they're Iraqi and that means a whole hell of a lot to them.

[Marilyn Manson]

Iraq is not going to be either totally secure or totally stable until the Iraqi population enjoy a real level of prosperity. And said prosperity is years off, if it indeed it will ever arrive.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Iraq is not going to be either totally secure or totally stable until the Iraqi population enjoy a real level of prosperity. And said prosperity is years off, if it indeed it will ever arrive.

Figure we've been in Bosnia for 9 years now, and comparatively, it's a much nicer, richer place.....

This is one reason that every little thing counts (and ultimately, will most likely fail)