Saddam's trial a joke

[James]

Well it depends. I think you are thinking moral versus legal.

He had absolute power so what he did was legal. As far as Iraq as a nation-state is concerned.

I am not saying he is not a bad guy. I am just saying we should just quietly execute him versus creating a sham trial.


But I would have done that at Nuremburgh also, just shot them all and spared us the bad drama.

Originally posted by ktsnake
So you're suggesting that gassing your own people should be legal under any system?

I'm pretty certain that murder is illegal (and was illegal when it happened) in Iraq.

[Kevin]

A frightening thing that Tim Hughes, one of Saddam's lawyers said:

"Any trial in Baghdad will not be fair." Under Iraqi law Saddam remains president of Iraq because he was overthrown in an illegal invasion, Hughes said. Therefore, he said, Saddam still has immunity from prosecution."

***

Here's a quote from the same CNN article I used to get the above clip. It speaks a little about the actual law that's in play here:

"In an interview with CNN, Feisal al-Istrabadi, the principal drafter of the transitional administrative law, was asked about the availability of war crime evidence if Saddam didn't sign documents approving the actions he is suspected of spearheading.

"The crimes of the regimes were not few and were not small in scale. You are talking about mass public executions. For instance in 1969 there were mass public executions on TV of 13 men."

***

So they are currently under some kind of transitional administrative law if that answers your question.

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by ktsnake
A frightening thing that Tim Hughes, one of Saddam's lawyers said:

"Any trial in Baghdad will not be fair." Under Iraqi law Saddam remains president of Iraq because he was overthrown in an illegal invasion, Hughes said. Therefore, he said, Saddam still has immunity from prosecution."

***

Here's a quote from the same CNN article I used to get the above clip. It speaks a little about the actual law that's in play here:

"In an interview with CNN, Feisal al-Istrabadi, the principal drafter of the transitional administrative law, was asked about the availability of war crime evidence if Saddam didn't sign documents approving the actions he is suspected of spearheading.

"The crimes of the regimes were not few and were not small in scale. You are talking about mass public executions. For instance in 1969 there were mass public executions on TV of 13 men."

***

So they are currently under some kind of transitional administrative law if that answers your question.

The interview is more about evidence then the criminal codes they are using. My guess is they are going to be using international laws and not really any Iraqi laws. But since the trials wont happen in the near future, they should have new criminal code by then.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by moe.ron
The interview is more about evidence then the criminal codes they are using. My guess is they are going to be using international laws and not really any Iraqi laws. But since the trials wont happen in the near future, they should have new criminal code by then.

The article references Feisal al-Istrabadi, the drafter of the transitional administrative law that I guess is currently in play.

I'm sure they'll have a functional legal system by the time Saddam is brought to trial.

I find it unbelievable that the Saddam's attornies are making the arguments that they are. But honestly, that's probably the best chance he has.

[PhiPsiRuss]

The real dilema is that justice, for the international community, would best be served if the trial took place in the Hague. Then it would be beyond reproach.

There is, however, another very important consideration. The people of Iraq need this trial to be a catharsis. They need to see him come to justice under Iraqi laws, in an Iraqi courtroom, and by Iraqis. There also may be a need for Saddam to be executed, so that any hope for a Napolean like return will be eliminated.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
Even though Iraq is "sovereign" again, Saddam is held by American soldiers, transported by American soldiers, is being tried in a court with the law books written by American administrators, and has been denied access to a lawyer. Now wtf is that. Even Milosevic got a lawyer.
He commited most of his crimes against the Iraqi people so I think it is only fitting that the Iraqi people get to try him to get justice.
Hussein seems like he's being more rational now than ever before.
Not that that means a whole lot, but he's right when he says that his trial is a joke, or 'theatre'.

Moo U -

Saddam has lawyers - he said he wouldn't sign any papers w/out their consult.

The Iraqi people do get to try him, in an Iraqi court - this is what is currently happening (in early stages, obviously).

Being held by american soldiers is 100% a necessity.

Saddam's ravings don't really resemble my definition of 'rational'.

So . . . maybe we need to start over?

-RC
--Glad my brother's pledging D-UP

[Kevin]

Just noticed IowaState's allegation that the laws were written by Americans.

Maybe true if Feisal al-Istrabadi is an American.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
Iraq has a 3,000 year old tradition of justice. Just because the judicial procedings don't resemble an American trial, it doesn't mean that it isn't a fair trial.

My mama's cousin & his wife are attorneys, and currently, they're both in Macedonia, where Barbara is a Federal Attorney, teaching the difference between American & European Law. Their letters are incredibly interesting, but Barbara is champing at the bit to be reassigned to Iraq. Her husband would much rather stay in Europe, but he's also very supportive. As he explained, the easiest way to explain the difference is, in Europe, you're guilty until proven otherwise, while we have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

I don't pretend to know about Iraqi law, but it looks to me that Saddam realizes that he's going to be executed anyhow, so he's just making a statement prior to dying.